Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Supplies Officers, Manchester

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health how many supplies officers are employed for the five hospital management committees in Manchester; what additional staff is employed for this purpose; and what is the annual cost.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): One whole-time and three who also have other duties; there are three deputies, and about fifty employees in the general administrative, clerical and ancillary grades; a precise apportionment of cost is not available.

Mr. Johnson: Can my hon. Friend say how that compares with the position in 1939?

Miss Pitt: No, Sir. I do not think that a reasonable comparison can be made with the position in 1939. Some of these hospitals were then local authority hospitals, but not all of them.

Boundary Park Hospital, Oldham

Mr. Hale: asked the Minister of Health what steps he will take to assist the needed recruitment of registered and enrolled nurses at the Boundary Park Hospital, Oldham, so as to bring the skilled staff up to strength and enable wards block W.2 and W.3 to be opened.

Miss Pitt: Recruitment at individual hospitals is the responsibility of the hispital management committees.

Mr. Hale: It may be the responsibility of the hospital management committee, but the rates of wages for nurses are fixed by the Government. A nurse today is paid considerably less than a shorthand-typist. Is it not the case that we cannot get nurses, that the hospital is not fully staffed and that the admirable work of the excellent medical officer there is, to an extent, frustrated by a shortage of staff? What does the Ministry propose to do about it?

Miss Pitt: The rates of wages are decided by the appropriate Whitley Council. and there is a claim pending at the moment. The position about the


recruitment of nurses is that at 31st March this year the figure was the highest ever on record.

Mr. Hale: The hon. Lady says that nurses' wages are decided by the Whitley Council, but is not she aware that the Government are reserving the right to repudiate every decision made by wages councils and that to tell them in advance what not to do makes a mockery of the thing?

Miss Pitt: I do not think that that is really a question for my Department, but it is not the case that the Government are repudiating any decisions.

Mr. Hale: asked the Minister of Health why his officers were not able to obtain information about the population served by the Boundary Park Hospital, Oldham, so as to obtain an accurate computation of geriatric needs.

Miss Pitt: No special difficulties have arisen in computing the geriatric beds needed in this area.

Mr. Hale: But the Parliamentary Secretary promised last week to send me a copy of the report. I must, of course, wait to see what it says. I have not received it yet, unless it arrived this morning. I have not been home this morning. In the meantime, may I suggest that, when I do receive a copy, I may be surprised to find that it contains the very statement that I make in my Question?

Miss Pitt: I did not promise to send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the report. I told him that I had no doubt that my right hon. Friend would follow up his previous letter and tell him of the results of the inquiries and suggestions made by the visiting team which had been to this hospital. The point that the hon. Gentleman may have in mind is the definition of the number of geriatric beds. I am told that the visiting team was informed that the population served was about 250,000, but it had previously been informed by the regional hospital board that the figure of 250,000 was for geriatrics and only about 210,000 for other purposes. However, the necessary information has been obtained.

Hospital Development

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Health what is the bed complement planned for the Cardiff new teaching

hospital; and what effect this will have on each of the hospitals in the Cardiff district.

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the shortage of beds in the Newcastle region; and what action he intends to take to meet the recommendations made by the regional hospital board.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell): I would ask the hon. Members to await the statement on hospital development foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that we have been waiting for years and years for this new training hospital in Cardiff and that there is every indication that, although it will serve a much wider area than the City of Cardiff itself, our hospitals are to have their bed complement reduced? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is considerable anxiety about this matter before he takes a final decision?

Mr. Powell: I know that this is a very important undertaking for the whole of Wales, but I must ask hon. Members to look at the details in the context of the general plan.

Mr. K. Robinson: Can the Minister say when he expects to lay his White Paper on the hospital plan?

Mr. Powell: As soon as I can, consistent with doing the job.

Glan Ely Hospital, Cardiff

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Health what proposals he has for the development of geriatric work at Glan Ely Hospital, Cardiff.

Miss Pitt: A further ward is now being converted for use and another will be repaired for use next year.

Mr. Thomas: Is the hon. Lady aware that three wards in this hospital were kept empty for a considerable time, and is she now able to tell me that every ward in this hospital which can be used for geriatric purposes is being used, and is adequately fitted out?

Miss Pitt: I am aware that children's wards were empty, but for the happiest of reasons, because they were for


tuberculous children and no patients were waiting for beds. Some of the wards have been changed over to geriatric use. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's point categorically, but as the waiting list is only eighteen in the area, I suspect that the answer may well be "Yes".

Mr. Thomas: Will the hon. Lady accept that I share her satisfaction about the children? I knew that, but I question very much whether there are only eighteen elderly people awaiting admission to hospital in Cardiff.

Miss Pitt: Perhaps I might look at that and write to the hon. Gentleman. That is the information that I have from Wales.

Balderton Hospital (Children's Villas)

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: asked the Minister of Health when it is expected that the new children's villas now being built at Balderton Hospital will be completed.

Mr. Powell: Before the end of next year.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are mentally deficient and severely handicapped children in Nottingham who have been waiting now for years for accommodation in hospitals and whose parents are no longer physically capable of looking after them? They have become seriously ill and are under the strain, and all that can be done is to push the children around from hospital to hospital to find accommodation. Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to accelerate the building of these children's villas as that is the only hope for children who require permanent hospital accommodation?

Mr. Powell: I agree that these villas are urgently needed and, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, they are under construction. The work is proceeding according to schedule.

Manchester Royal Eye Hospital

Mr. W. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health how many full-time qualified nursing staff are employed at the Manchester Royal Eye Hospital; and what

were the numbers employed in November, 1958, 1959 and 1960.

Miss Pitt: The numbers are respectively 30, 26, 31 and 31.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this eye hospital serves thousands of people in south-east Lancashire and north Cheshire and that the closing of 25 beds has caused great concern in the area and will inevitably mean a postponement of surgery for non-acute cases such as cataracts, which affect old people in particular? Will the hon. Lady urge her right hon. Friend to ask the board of governors to seek a short-term solution by examining the possibility of temporarily transferring trained nurses from within the group to the eye hospital? As a long-term solution, will the hon. Lady look at the possibility of recruitment in Jamaica, the West Indies and other places in which, I am told, there is a reservoir of people who are willing and able to come to this country and who would make an excellent additional contribution to British nursing staffs?

Miss Pitt: The question of recruiting staff must be a matter for the board of governors and I have no doubt that they will read what the hon. Gentleman has said today. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that in addition to the beds that have been reopened—details of which I gave in answer to a previous Question and I think I mentioned the figure of ten—a further eight have been reopened.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Welfare Foods

Mr. Denis Howell: asked the Minister of Health if he will now give relative sales figures for vitamin foods available to children under the National Health Service for comparable periods before and after the recent increases in price; and if he will state the cost, the extent, and the purpose of the campaign now being undertaken by Her Majesty's Government to sell these commodities.

Miss Pitt: The figures are in the reply I gave to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) on 1st December. The availability and value


of these supplements is brought to the notice of those concerned by local health authorities and others. It is not possible to specify the cost of doing so.

Mr. Howell: Is the Minister aware that I have here a copy of a poster which has been circulated by the Government at enormous expense throughout the country to most business houses and other people, which clearly shows that the Government are obviously concerned about the enormous drop in the sale of the vitamin foods, which was evidenced by the previous Answer to which she referred? As we are worried about the effect on mothers and babies, and as we are spending a tremendous amount of money on advertising, is not the only sensible solution to take off these charges? Is it not a fact that we are spending as much money advertising these vitamin foods as the Minister tried to save by putting the charges up?

Miss Pitt: I am surprised that the poster has gone to industrial concerns. It is issued to local authorities, and I think that it is a very good one. One of the purposes behind its issue was to bring home to those mothers who are in the residuary group, the people whom we most want to get at to improve the health of their children, that these supplements are available, and in particular that the orange juice supplement is now available to children up to the age of 5.

Mr. K. Robinson: Does the hon. Lady recall that a month ago her right hon. Friend said that he had no reason to doubt that the proper vitamin intake was being maintained? In view of that, why have the Government embarked on this publicity campaign? Is not there some conflict here?

Miss Pitt: No, Sir. As a general statement that is accurate. The hon. Gentleman will remember that during the debate we had on the welfare foods most of us were very concerned about the small minority of cases where we still felt that help could be given.

Census Statistics

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Health if without awaiting the full publication of the 1961 census, he will state the number of households

it reveals to be without a bath, sharing a bath, without an inside toilet or without hot water, respectively.

Miss Pitt: These figures will appear in one of the first series of reports for local areas. It would not be practicable to produce them in advance

Mr. Allaun: But as these figures are of such importance to millions of families, and as other figures have already been extracted and published in certain cases, should not this information be given priority?

Miss Pitt: No, Sir. The processing of all the statistical information arising from the census is in full spate at the moment. To take out one set of figures and produce them at an earlier stage than is proposed in the pattern would delay all the other figures.

Welfare Foods

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Health what amounts of cod liver oil and orange juice were distributed by the Health Department in Salford for the twelve weeks starting 4th July, 1960, and a similar period starting 3rd July, 1961; and what was the percentage decrease in each welfare food.

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Health what quantities of welfare foods were dispensed in Middlesex during the period 1st July to 30th September in 1960 and 1961, respectively.

Miss Pitt: I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Allaun: I am sure that these figures will show the same trend as everywhere else, that they have gone down by about three-quarters. Does the Minister realise that there are many homes where every penny counts, and in which they really do go short of food? Are not these precisely the families whose health is being hit by these miserable, skinflint, charges on cod liver oil and orange juice? Does the Minister think that people drink cod liver oil for fun? They drink it because they need it. Surely the Government should reconsider this? I plead with the Minister to reconsider this miserable business.

Miss Pitt: There are some Questions on policy later on the Order Paper, and


I will not anticipate those, but any family in need, particularly those already receiving National Assistance benefit, can receive these supplements free.

Mrs. Butler: Does the hon. Lady realise that in No. 2 health area of Middlesex, which covers Wood Green, this 70 per cent. drop in the take-up of orange juice, cod liver oil, and A and L) tablets resulted, in a two-month period, in the paltry saving of £142? If the increase in administrative costs is included, there is a loss instead of a profit for the whole period. If this mopping up of the saving for the country as a whole by administrative costs is taken into consideration, what is the purpose of these increases in the charge on welfare foods, when we all know that they are harmful

—
Welfare Food
1960
1961


Salford (1)
…
…
…
…
…
Cod liver oil (bottles)
1,695
633










(62·65 per cent. decrease)



Orange juice (bottles)
16,435
5,815





(64·62 per cent. decrease)


Middlesex (2)
…
…
…
…
…
Cod liver oil (bottles)
26,537
9,168



Vitamin tablets (packets)
30,512
15,626



Orange juice (bottles)
259,962
109,680



National Dried Milk (tins)
62,048
58,295


(1) 12 weeks commencing 4th July, 1960, and 3rd July, 1961.


(2) Quarter ending 24th September, 1960, and 30th September, 1961.

General Practitioners

Commander Kerans: asked the Minister of Health how many general practitioners have contracted out of the National Health Service from 1955 onwards.

Mr. Powell: There were 4,350 withdrawals between 1st January, 1955, and 1st July, 1960. Reasons for withdrawals are not notified, but death or retirement account for the majority.

Commander Kerans: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is a growing sense of frustration among many general practitioners in the National Health Service, mainly because of the overladen capacity of the work they have to do, and the frustration of administration? Will my right hon.

to the health of many mothers and small children.

Miss Pitt: I take it that the hon. Lady means that the charges are harmful, and not that the supplements are.

Mrs. Butler: Yes.

Miss Pitt: As was explained in the debate, although the vitamins are important in nutrition, they are now available through many other sources because of the wide variety of foods available for people in this country, and, as I said earlier, the necessitous cases can obtain these supplements free if they are in receipt of National Assistance benefit.

Following are the figures for the third quarter:

Friend look into the question of whether we can get more doctors from the Commonwealth and elsewhere to supplement the present deficiencies in the National Health Service?

Mr. Powell: I would not agree that there is a growing sense of frustration, and in fact the number of general practitioners on National Health Service lists is increasing. Certainly the figures that I have given my hon. and gallant Friend do not contain evidence to support his contention.

Hearing Aids

Commander Kerans: asked the Minister of Health how many hearing aids were issued in the years 1959 and 1960; and how many have been issued in 1961 to date.

Miss Pitt: The figures are: 166,349; 199,943 and about 200,000.

Commander Kerans: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of my constituents who applied for an advanced hearing aid—she was very deaf and wore the old type—was told by the local authority that because she had no priority, and priority was given to the men and women trying to get jobs, she could not get the new type hearing aid? Bearing in mind that she is living on her own, and that there is the safety aspect of crossing the road in traffic when wearing the old type of hearing aid, is it not outrageous that in this modern age some of these people should not get a higher priority than laid down by the Regulations?

Miss Pitt: It think that my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary question shows that he has in mind the transistor hearing aid. The figures that I have given are for Medresco aids generally. The transistor hearing aid which has been introduced within the last two years is being issued on a priority basis, and we are now issuing them at the rate of 200,000 a year. We hope to complete the replacement of all the earlier valve aids by the middle of 1963.

Tuberculosis (Immigrants)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health what was the rate of incidence per 1,000 of active pulmonary tuberculosis in West Indian immigrants for each of the past three years.

Miss Pitt: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the hon. Lady aware that the British Medical Journal recently gave a figure of 1 per thousand? In view of the very low incidence of active pulmonary tuberculosis in the West Indies, is it not nonsense to seek to exclude West Indians from coming to this country on grounds of health? Would not the hon. Lady agree that it would be far better to treat these people and send them out into the world cured than to exclude them from coming to this country?

Miss Pitt: The question of their entry is, of course, another matter, but it is

correct that the incidence of tuberculosis among West Indians is, on the average, not higher than in the rest of the population. It is higher in the case of Asians.

Commander Kerans: Would my hon. Friend agree that the recent report by the British Medical Association shows that there is a very high incidence of tuberculosis among people coming to this country from Asian countries, and from the West Indies? Will she look into this matter again?

Miss Pitt: I referred to Asians in my answer to an earlier supplementary question, but I should add that in general I have no reason to believe that immigrants from the Commonwealth have been responsible for bringing infectious disease to this country to an extent likely to involve a risk to public health.

General Practitioners (Merit Awards)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health if any decision has yet been reached as to the disposal of £500,000 which, in accepting the recommendations of the Pilkington Committee, Her Majesty's Government agreed to devote to rewarding merit among general practitioners in the National Health Service.

Mr. Powell: No, Sir. The Joint Working Party on this has met once. A further meeting was postponed at the request of the profession.

Mr. Pavitt: Is it not now apparent that the medical profession do not like this idea of singling out G.P.s to have extra money compared with their colleagues? Is this not a dead letter and, if it is a dead letter, are not the Government prepared to consider using the £½ million, which is not to be used for this purpose, in order to buttress the provision of orange juice and cod liver oil which is so urgently needed?

Mr. Powell: That is a hypothetical question.

Lord Balniel: Did not the Royal Commission recommend that this £500,000 should revert to the Exchequer if it were not used for the general practitioners' merit award scheme?

Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir.

Leprosy

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Health how many infectious cases of leprosy there were in Manchester on 31st October, 1961, and 31st October, 1951, respectively; and how many of these cases occurred among the West Indian population.

Miss Pitt: One and none respectively. Notifications do not give country of origin.

Mrs. Castle: Do not those figures, showing that there is only one case of infectious leprosy in Manchester and providing no evidence that the infection is coming from among the West Indian immigrant population, once again prove that attempts have been made to support the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill on grounds which are quite unfounded and that public opinion was aroused during the Moss Side by-election in favour of the Government Measure with no justification whatever?

Mr. Speaker: That supplementary question does not appear to relate to a matter within the responsibility of the Minister of Health.

Multiple Sclerosis

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Health if he will take steps to make facilities for the treatment of multiple sclerosis by the Le Gac method available to patients in this country under the National Health Service.

Miss Pitt: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) on 4th December.

Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Lady aware that that reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) was totally inaccurate? Does she not remember that when I raised with her the case of a woman suffering from multiple sclerosis, whose husband wanted this treatment for his wife, the hon. Lady told me that the doctor could apply to the Ministry of Health for particulars of the facilities available? The doctor, having done so, was informed by the principal medical officer of the Department that at present there is no doctor or hospital in this country known to the Department to be using this treatment.

In view of this, will the hon. Lady stop misleading hon. Members and get down to providing these facilities under the National Health Service?

Miss Pitt: That is very different from saying that the treatment should be available. The question of whether a doctor is using it is another and separate question. There is nothing to prevent any doctor using this Le Gac method, as I said in reply to the previous Question.

Mr. H. Hynd: Will the hon. Lady have another look at the Answer which she gave me last week, because my constituent raised the question with me and assured me that he had been unable to get this treatment?

Miss Pitt: It is up to the doctor, not to my right hon. Friend, to say what method of treatment shall be used in a particular case. There is nothing to prevent doctors making use of the method advocated.

Mrs. Castle: Is not the hon. Lady aware that the doctor in the case of my constituent was advised to get into touch with her Department for advice as to how he should give the treatment, what form it should take and where facilities could be sought and made available? He has had a reply from the Department which, in effect, gets him nowhere at all. Where is the doctor to turn when he wants to give the Le Gac treatment to a patient?

Miss Pitt: My Department will be able to arrange to give to any doctor the information, which has been published, about the Le Gac method of treatment, but it is for the doctor himself to say whether he wishes to use it.

Mr. K. Robinson: Is there not also some responsibility on the Minister to assess this treatment, to find what its value is and, if necessary, to see that the treatment is available in this country?

Miss Pitt: No, Sir, that is not the responsibility of the Minister of Health.

Prescription Charge

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Health if he has now completed his review of the 2s. prescription charge; and if he will make a statement.

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the 2s. prescription charge is continuing to cause hardship and whether he is prepared to reconsider the position with a view to removing the charge.

Mr. Powell: I am watching the position continuously, but find no ground for altering the charge.

Mrs. Butler: Is the Minister aware that a constituent of mine paid 1s. for eye ointment when buying it over the counter and subsequently she had to pay 2s. prescription charge for an identical tube of eye ointment obtained on a doctor's prescription? Does he realise that busy chemists cannot possibly operate two systems of prescribing? Is it not time that this money-wasting, time-wasting and temper-fraying stupidity was removed altogether?

Mr. Powell: I have no reason to believe that this is wasting money, but, if the hon. Lady will let me have particulars of the incident she has mentioned, I will look into it.

Sir B. Janner: Is not the Minister aware that there is a considerable amount of feeling in regard to the charge, which is preventing a large number of people from getting by prescription the medicaments which they need? Why does he impose a charge of this nature when he knows that it will cause hardship to a large number of people?

Mr. Powell: I have no reason to believe that this charge is preventing people from getting the treatment or medicines which they need, but I believe that it is widely recognised that the money which the charge yields is used to better effect in the National Health Service.

Mrs. Butler: Is the Minister not concerned about the waste of money on the part of my constituent who had to pay twice as much for the second tube of ointment?

Mr. Powell: I have promised to look at that particular case.

Mr. K. Robinson: Is not the Minister aware that on the first seven months' experience there has been a drop in the number of prescriptions of 24 million per year, which is three times the rate which he estimated when he drew up

the Estimates for the current year? In view of that, is there not prima facie evidence that people are suffering hardship and are not getting the medicines they need? Will he review the whole arrangement?

Mr. Powell: There was bound to be a fall in the number of prescriptions, if only because of the increase in prescribing for a longer period, which was very desirable. I still would not consider that we have had anything like enough experience of the working of the charge to assess the overall effect.

Emergency Ambulance Service, Rowley Regis

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Minister of Health what steps are being taken to provide a 24-hour emergency ambulance service in the Borough of Rowley Regis.

Miss Pitt: I am informed that 24-hour emergency cover for the Borough of Rowley Regis is provided from Tipton, Brierley Hill and Halesowen.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that cases have occurred where ambulances have taken 20 and 25 minutes to reach an injured person? There is widespread dissatisfaction in the borough, and the borough council has expressed great anxiety at the inadequacy of the service. Will the Minister look at this whole question again and consult with Staffordshire County Council and Rowley Regis Borough Council on the matter?

Miss Pitt: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has details of any particular case in which a delay of that length has occurred I will be glad to look into it. But in general, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the county council is responsible for the ambulance service in this area. It went into the matter thoroughly and was satisfied that the service is adequate.

Health Visitors and Social Workers

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the Scottish practice for the training of health visitors and social workers, he will take steps to arrange for direct grants to be made from the Ministry of Education.

Mr. Powell: No, Sir.

Dame Irene Ward: Can my right hon. Friend state categorically which system he thinks is the best, bearing in mind that the Secretary of State for Scotland is in the Cabinet and has all the facts while the Minister of Health is not in the Cabinet and has limited horizons?

Mr. Powell: As I explained in the debate on Second Reading of the Health Visitors and Social Workers Training Bill, the arrangement which the Bill contemplates is in accordance with the general arrangements in England and Wales for grants for further education.

Lord Balniel: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will look at this matter again, for was it not a very strong recommendation of the Younghusband Report that grants should be paid? As apparently the practice is different in Scotland, is it not desirable to bring the two countries into line?

Mr. Powell: If so, that would go beyond the question of grants for social workers' training and would be a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker: Question No. 25—Mr. Robinson.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. May I know what happened to Question No. 22?

Mr. Speaker: It was answered, but the hon. Lady made no effort to rise.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. When my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) rose to ask a supplementary question I sat down, but I did not hear you call Question No. 22, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady is under an illusion. Question No. 22 was answered with Question No. 4.

Welfare Foods

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health if, in view of official figures showing a drop of more than 70 per cent. in the take-up of orange juice and cod liver oil at the new prices, he will reconsider his policy regarding subsidy on vitamin supplements and now introduce regulations to amend the Welfare Foods (Amendment) Orders, 1961.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Health if he will investigate the causes of the 77 per cent. drop in the distribution of cod liver oil and the 71 per cent. drop in the distribution of orange juice in Newcastle-under-Lyme between the summer of 1960 and the summer of 1961; and if he will take steps to increase the distribution of these welfare foods.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the marked reduction in the uptake of cod liver oil and orange juice since new charges were imposed, he will revert to the former charges.

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Health what steps he proposes to take to safeguard the health of young children in Stoke-on-Trent, in view of the decrease in the distribution of orange juice and cod liver oil.

Mr. Powell: No, Sir. Welfare foods remain a cheap source of vitamins along with the many other sources now available. They can be supplied free if necessary. Their availability has been further publicised.

Mr. Robinson: But is the Minister really saying that he is not concerned at the size of this fall? Does he not really think now that there are mothers and children who are not getting the vitamin supplements they need? What did his hon. Friend mean in the debate on 19th April when she said that if there was a substantial fall the matter would have to be reconsidered by the Government? Why has that pledge not been implemented?

Mr. Powell: The problem is one of individual and particular families. That is not best dealt with by a general subsidy but by the work of the health visitors who can get at actual families where there is a deficiency of intake. Generally speaking, there is no reason to believe that there is a deficiency of intake of these vitamins.

Mr. Swingler: Would the Minister be more candid? Is it his view that there was extravagance in the consumption of cod liver oil and orange juice in 1960, or that there has been a grave drop which is a serious loss to the health of the children in 1961—a drop of 70 per cent.? In these days of market research,


what steps have the right hon. Gentleman's Department taken to discover the real reasons for such a startling fall in such a short period of time?

Mr. Powell: The reason for this Measure was given in debates earlier this year, and was that there was no longer any reason for an overall subsidy to every recipient of these foods. They are available free where there is need.

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Slater.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. Would you be so kind, Mr. Speaker, to look at Question No. 4 and No. 22, which bear no relation to each other?

Mr. Speaker: We really cannot probe the misfortunes of the hon. Lady in the middle of Question Time. From my recollection her Question was answered with the other Question, and I took great care to see if the hon. Lady desired to ask a supplementary question, but she had no physical appearance of doing so. Mrs. Slater.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. Question No. 4 relates to Cardiff and Question No. 22 to the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board and its report. Might I ask the Minister to explain—

Mr. Speaker: No, the hon. Lady may not do so. If she experiences difficulty about it, I will explain to her in private, but the Chair has no opportunity of dictating to the Minister what answer he should give or which Questions he should group together.

Dame Irene Ward: The right hon. Gentleman is a dictator and not a democratic Minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Dame Irene Ward: I do not like dictators. I like democratic Ministers— [Interruption.]—I am not feeling that way at all.

Hon. Members: Order.

Dame Irene Ward: Why should Newcastle be done out of a reply? It is absolute nonsense.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it was in 1693 that this House first resolved that hon. Members who were not speaking should keep quiet.

Dame Irene Ward: I was not born in 1693.

Mrs. Slater: May I bring the House back to a serious matter? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that local authority social workers are deeply concerned about this 70 per cent. drop in the intake of welfare foods? These are the people who visit the homes and who know that the people who need them most are those who are failing to get them? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that in 1961—nearly 1962—it is about time that his Government and his party stopped this cheeseparing in relation to the children of working-class people and realised that the health of the children matters most?

Mr. Powell: I am sure that in 1961 the vast majority of parents and families are able and willing to pay for this supplement for their families. The problem concerns a very small minority and a general subsidy is not justified.

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Minister of Health if he will give figures showing the distribution and purchase of welfare foods, cod liver oil and orange juice in the towns of Leek, Kidsgrove, Cheadle and Biddulph in the years 1958, 1959, 1960, and 1961.

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Health what quantities of cod liver oil and orange juice, respectively, were distributed in Leicester in the years 1958, 1959, 1960 and 1961 and what quantities were distributed in Leicestershire in the same years.

Miss Pitt: I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Davies: Can the hon. Lady say whether or not the figures show that there has been a considerable reduction in the consumption of these foods, and does she herself not consider it scandalous that this measure was steamrollered through the House by a huge majority when at the same time massive rebates were being given to Surtax payers and investment allowances were being extended? Is not this disgusting and a reflection of the attitude of the Government towards people in the industrial areas?

Miss Pitt: The figures show a reduction. The other points that the hon. Gentleman makes were all made in the debate that we had on this subject last April.

Sir B. Janner: Is the hon. Lady aware that I have been listening very carefully to the replies which have been given to various Questions asked on this subject and that I find it entirely impossible to understand those replies? Does she really think that if there is no hard

Area
Date
Cod liver oil (bottles)
Orange juice (bottles)
Vitamin A and D tablets (packets)
National Dried Milk (tins)


Kidsgrove
1958
1,118
4,764
737
3,600



1959
633
5,066
780
3,870



1960
742
5,264
753
2,765



1961
590
2,700
538
1,730



 (to quarter ended 30th September)






Leek Health Area (which includes Leek, Cheadle and Biddulph).
1958
5,072
36,653
3,707
33,977



1959
5,002
36,070
3,840
33,674



1960
5,084
33,005
3,918
30,172



1961
2,958
19,260
3,071
20,336



 (to quarter ended 30th September)






Leicester C.B.
1958
17,664
134,624
—
—



1959
18,062
140,855
—
—



1960
16,821
128,657
—
—



1961
10,033
65,315
—
—



 (to quarter ended 30th September)






Leicestershire C. C.
1958
26,467
198,048
—
—



1959
25,520
213,240
—
—



1960
25,241
205,613
—
—



1961
15,130
112,083
—
—



 (to quarter ended 30th September)

Clerical Staff (Pay)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health, if he is aware that the management side of the Administrative and Clerical Whitley Council have proposed additional increments for entrants to the clerical grade who possess certain educational qualifications, but insist that on account of the pay pause the increments cannot apply to existing staff; and if he will approve the payment of such increments to all basic grade clerical staff who qualify, as required by the staff side.

ship and if people are getting these supplies, there is no need to advertise? If there is no need to advertise why does she advertise? If there is a need to advertise, why does she say that there is no need for people to have these foods? What is the answer to this?

Miss Pitt: These supplements, at cost price, are still a very cheap way of obtaining valuable vitamins.

Following are the figures:

Mr. Powell: I have not been asked to approve any proposals.

Mr. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these facts reveal a very ridiculous situation, that if the pay pause is insisted on in this way it is a standing invitation to existing clerical staff to resign their posts and then reapply for them so that they can get the additional increments which are proposed by the Whitley Council? Will not he do something about the pay pause in connection with the Health Service staffs, most of whom are underpaid in


relation to comparable occupations elsewhere?

Mr. Powell: The Health Service, as well as other parts of the public service, must be governed by the policy of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but in this case, while I understand that the matter has been under discussion in the Whitley Council, no proposal has come to me.

Radiographers

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Health if he will state the cost to the National Health Service of the employment of radiographers supplied by a private company as against their direct employment by his Department.

Miss Pitt: I regret no useful estimate can be made.

Mrs. Slater: Does not the hon. Lady think that this is a positively disgusting situation? We have just been told that we cannot afford to reduce the price of welfare foods, but here a private company has been set up to employ radiographers who are at present employed by the National Health Service, who leave the National Health Service and go to the private company and there get more salary than they had previously, at an added cost, one supposes, to the Ministry of Health? How ridiculous is this situation? Apparently, we cannot afford to give children the food supplements that they require but we can afford to "feed" private profits in this way.

Miss Pitt: There is a shortage of radiographers, but it is a diminishing problem. The number of radiographers who qualified in 1960 was 436 compared with 359 in 1959—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]—and the number who commenced training in that year rose from 594 to 727. The larger numbers now being trained should mean that there will be more radiographers in the Service in the years ahead and that there will be no need to employ outside people.

Mrs. Slater: That does not answer my supplementary question I did not ask how many people had been trained this year I asked a simple, logical question whether it was reasonable to allow a private company to supply radiographers to the National Health Service at a

higher salary than the Ministry is prepared to pay them? That is my question, and it is to that that I want an answer.

Miss Pitt: It may be reasonable as a temporary measure when there is pressure or need.

Mr. K. Robinson: Would not the hon. Lady agree that it is wrong that a hospital authority should be forced to go outside the National Health Service to a private company to get radiographers? Does not the hon. Lady appreciate that unless the Ministry does something about this, it will lead to a vicious circle because more and more radiographers will leave the hospital service and go to private firms which can pay them more?

Miss Pitt: It is essential to the Service that a radiographer should be available, and while there is a shortage, I see no reason why hospitals should not employ an outside service, provided that it is a temporary measure.

Motor Tricycles (Married Couples)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health in how many cases married couples were each provided with a powered tricycle by his Department in 1960 and to the latest convenient date in 1961; what is the cost of two such tricycles; and what would be the cost of a two-seater car as supplied to the war disabled.

Miss Pitt: Four in 1960 and two this year. In addition, twelve tricycles were supplied in 1960 and five this year to persons whose spouses already had tricycles.
I cannot disclose precise contract prices.

Mr. Johnson: As the numbers involved are very small indeed, and as the price of two tricycles, as my hon. Friend said in answer to a Question last week, is more than the price of one car, can she give me any possible reason, other than the principle of giving a preference to the disabled, why the Minister should not seek powers to allow married couples to have a car instead of tricycles, should they so desire?

Miss Pitt: I answered a Question on this subject last week, and I would emphasise the point that I made then, which is a serious one. It is better in many circumstances for two disabled people to have two vehicles, because they are then both independent.

Mr. Johnson: I do not think my hon. Friend can have heard my supplementary question. I asked her whether my right hon. Friend should not take powers to let couples have a car instead of tricycles if they so desire—so that they may have a choice between the two?

Miss Pitt: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to make an exception.

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Johnson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Government Training Centre, Long Eaton

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Labour on what grounds he proposes to close the Government training centre at Long Eaton, Nottinghamshire; whether he is aware of the opposition to this proposal expressed by the Derby and District Disablement Advisory Committee; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): The industrial rehabilitation unit and the first-year apprentice class at Long Eaton are not being closed down, but, as I announced in my Answer to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) on 8th December, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that I must close the Government Training Centre because the number of persons trained at this centre have been too few in recent years to justify its retention. There is a centre at Leicester and some training classes can be transferred there. There is also a Residential Training Centre for

more severely disabled persons at Portland, near Nottingham. I consulted the disablement advisory committees and local employment committees concerned and took their views into account before arriving at my decision. The Long Eaton Local Employment Committee and the Chairman of the Long Eaton Disablement Advisory Committee after consultation with his members did not oppose the decision.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great anxiety in Derby and district about this proposal because it is felt that it will deprive industry in the area of skilled men, that handicapped and disabled men will not be able to travel to distant stations for training, and, therefore, instead of having skilled jobs, they will have to live on public assistance?

Mr. Hare: As I explained in my Answer, I do not think that the fears which the right hon. Gentleman had in mind will materialise. What I am doing is to reduce the training facilities to a level which is, I think, nearer to the actual demand. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that empty places make no contribution to our economic welfare.

Mr. Prentice: If there is surplus capacity at the Long Eaton centre or any other Government training centre, would it not be a good idea to expand the first-year apprenticeship course? Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in distinction to what happened last year, there is a big unsatisfied demand by firms for this course?

Mr. Hare: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the first-year apprenticeship training courses are designed to set an example of what can be done in pre-apprentice training and are quite apart from the normal work done at the Government training centres. I really have nothing more to add to what I have just said in answer to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Tapsell: Will my right hon. Friend be able to ensure that everyone from Nottingham who would otherwise have gone to the Long Eaton training centre will now be able to get similar training elsewhere?

Mr. Hare: As I have indicated in my Answer to the right hon. Gentleman, I think that is so.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Minister ensure that transport facilities are provided to these distant places?

Mr. Hare: The right hon. Gentleman knows that they always are.

Shipyard Workers (Aberdeen)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a large number of workers in Aberdeen shipyards have been paid off this November and December; how many of them are now unemployed; and what are his plans to find them employment before Christmas.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Alan Green): I understand that 52 workers have been discharged from shipyards in Aberdeen since the beginning of November. Of the 42 who registered at the Employment Exchange, 36 are still unemployed. My local officers will do all they can to find suitable employment for these men.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister realise that unemployment in Aberdeen and other British shipyards is increasing and that this is largely due to the conflict between the disastrous policies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Scotland? Will he consult them with a view to finding a way to restore order out of this chaos?

Mr. Green: The hon. and learned Member's supplementary question appears to be directed to two other of my right hon. Friends. I can tell him in direct answer that Aberdeen remains a development district, as I think he knows, and that unemployment in Aberdeen is virtually unchanged from last year.

Motor Industry (Industrial Relations)

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on his latest discussions with trade union leaders and employers on industrial relations in the motor industry.

Mr. Hare: We had a further discussion on 5th December. The employers and the unions both reaffirmed their

determination to secure observance of constitutional methods for settling disputes. They have acted in accordance with this determination since their joint statement in April. In spite of recent unofficial strikes, I am satisfied that real progress has been made. Both sides also reported on measures taken to improve relations at factory level. I think it was a very useful meeting and the vital need now is to get the spirit and purpose of these talks reflected on the shop floor. It was agreed that we should meet again next year to take stock.

Mr. Edelman: While welcoming the initiative which the Minister has taken in this matter, may I ask whether it is not the case that this second meeting has again ended in a trickle of platitudes? Should not the Minister have concerned himself less with the incidence of strikes than with the nature of the disputes? Will he not put on the next agenda of the meeting of employers and trade union leaders the real questions—those of redundancy and the slowness of procedure in settling disputes, and the question of a wages policy for the motor industry?

Mr. Hare: As for the practical methods of bringing the spirit of these talks down to the factory floor, I hope that the training of shop stewards and a better method of selecting and appointing supervisors will help, together with the general agreement that this must be brought down to the factory floor. The hon. Member knows that many companies in the industry have arrangements and agreements on the subject of redundancy. I hope that he also knows my own views on the subject. I sent him a pamphlet, to which I had written the foreword, and I think that he probably does not disagree with what I wrote there.

Sir C. Osborne: Will the Minister arrange conferences at a lower level so that the districts can arrange meetings between management at that level and people at the shop stewards' level, so that those on the shop floor understand what is being done in London?

Mr. Hare: The object of both the unions and the employers is a greater understanding of these problems at local level and to see that action can be taken to deal with problems when they arise.

Government Training Centre, Kidbrooke

Mr. C. Johnson: asked the Minister of Labour if he will consult the trade organisations concerned and representatives of local industry before deciding to close the Government training centre at Kidbrooke.

Mr. Hare: I consulted the local employment committees and disablement advisory committees in the area. Both trade unions and local industry are represented on these committees and I took their views into account before arriving at the decision to close the centre which I announced in Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) on 8th December.

Mr. Johnson: Arising out of that reply, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that many of the existing classes at Kidbrooke were practically full and that if they are transferred to other centres it will also be necessary to transfer instructors, otherwise the classes will be above the permitted maximum? Secondly, in which county or counties will the alternative centres be provided and what are the facilities for getting to them, having regard to the fact that so many of these trainees are disabled persons?

Mr. Hare: The hon. Member is misinformed about how full these courses are. This centre has only 160 places and these have been only 60 per cent. full for the last few years. I shall be delighted to send him full details of the alternative facilities which are available.

Mr. Johnson: Does not the Minister agree that the bricklaying class at this centre is full and that there is no alternative provision for bricklaying at any of the other centres?

Mr. Hare: I gave the hon. Member the answer to the effect that 60 per cent. of these vacancies are not filled. I will send him full details of the alternative arrangements which are being made.

Sunderland

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Labour what factors caused the increase this month of 373 in the number of unemployed in Sunderland; and what are the prospects of reducing unemployment in Sunderland in the immediate future.

Mr. Green: Apart from seasonal factors, the increase was caused by reduced activity in shipbuilding and ship-repairing. There are about 5,000 jobs in prospect in the area but I am not able to make any short-term forecast.

Mr. Willey: In view of the high level of unemployment in the area, in spite of the action taken by the Government, does not the Parliamentary Secretary think that we need new large-scale industrial enterprises? Will he co-operate with his right hon. Friend to see that Sunderland gets high priority when an opportunity occurs of new industry being persuaded to go into that development district?

Mr. Green: Development districts are a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and they are selected in accordance with priorities over the whole country. The hon. Member may like to know that although unemployment rose for the group with which he is concerned from October to November, the November, 1961, figure was 403 lower than that of November, 1960, and is the lowest November figure since 1957.

Mr. P. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that most people on both sides of the House would like to welcome the appointment of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) to his new appointment and to wish him success? Can my hon. Friend say how soon the 5,000 jobs reported to be in the pipeline, whatever that may mean, are liable to come to fruition—whatever that may mean?

Mr. Green: As my hon. Friend realises, it is very largely a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade rather than for me. I understand that all of them should come to fruition, which is the term which my hon. Friend used, within four years. I thought that no hon. Member on either side of the House who likes forward planning would burke at the words "in the pipeline".

Mr. Willey: Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that these fluctuations are fluctuations on a high level of unemployment and that we need a big industrial enterprise if we are to get some security in Sunderland? I ask him


again, will he co-operate with his right hon. Friend to see that Sunderland gets a fair opportunity to secure such industrial enterprise?

Mr. Green: The hon. Member appreciates that we seek to co-operate with the Board of Trade over all these matters. If he has a specific question for the President of the Board of Trade, no doubt he will put it down.

Disabled Persons, Sunderland

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Labour what is the number of disabled persons on the disabled persons register in Sunderland; and how many persons so registered are at present unemployed.

Mr. Green: On 16th October, 2,793 persons were registered as disabled; on 21st November, 423 such persons were unemployed.

Mr. Willey: For a long time we have had this high level of unemployed disabled people. Will the Parliamentary Secretary see whether he cannot extend Remploy at Sunderland, which provides some employment for these very hard cases?

Mr. Green: I have great sympathy with the hon. Member in this question. I am sure that he would like to know that the number of registered disabled persons unemployed is 46 lower than a year ago, which is a good thing. The Remploy factory at Sunderland is to be extended to provide places for at least an additional 20.

Industrial Health Advisory Committee

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour if he will summon a meeting, at the earliest convenient date, of the Industrial Health Advisory Committee of his Department to discuss the next steps to be taken to establish a comprehensive industrial health service.

Mr. Hare: The next meeting of the Committee has been fixed for 8th May, 1962 The Committee will then be considering further means of encouraging the development of medical services in industry, but as the hon. Member knows, the Government rely on voluntary action in that field.

Mr. Swingler: Is this sabotage by the Minister? Is it not deplorable that the

Minister has cancelled the November meeting of this Committee when it was due to consider the B.M.A. scheme for establishing a comprehensive industrial service? Is he not aware of the protests both of the B.M.A, and the T.U.C., who were not consulted about the cancellation of this meeting? In view of that, will he not call an earlier meeting to try to get on with the job?

Mr. Hare: The hon. Member is quite wrong to talk about sabotage. There was no agenda for this meeting except a number of reports which were circulated and on which there were no comments. I place great value on the work of this Committee, but I think that we have a great deal to learn from the experimental work, which has only just been put into effect.

Mr. Swingler: Is it not a fact that both the T.U.C, and the B.M.A. have written to the Minister regretting the fact that he cancelled the November meeting, and in the light of that will he not call an early meeting?

Mr. Hare: That is quite true, but other bodies are represented on the Committee and they did not take similar action.

Mr. Prentice: Is not the position that some big firms have good health services in the places of work but that only a very small percentage of the small firms are covered by group schemes? Does not the Minister agree that the only way to tackle this problem is through some national plan for an occupational health service?

Mr. Hare: I honestly think that neither the hon. Member nor anybody else should take up a fixed attitude. We had better await the lessons which we shall gain from the valuable experiments which are only now being put into effect.

CONGO

United Nations Forces, Katanga (Supply of Bombs)

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the supply of bombs to United Nations forces in the Katanga.
Fighting in the Katanga has continued to spread and has become more intense since I answered a Question in the House last Wednesday.
The United Nations forces are still being attacked at their headquarters in Elisabethville, at the airport and on the road joining them. The United Nations forces have attacked the Katangan gendarmerie camp, and it appears to have been in the course of this that a number of mortar bombs fell in or near the hospital. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] They have also attacked communications by which Katangan reinforcements are being brought to Elisabethville. These include railway engines, stations and fuel supplies.
The radio station and General Post Office have also been attacked. In addition, there are reports of attacks on power stations and mining installations, although I have not yet had confirmation of these from official sources. This situation is, therefore, highly dangerous.
Her Majesty's Government have been faced with a grave decision during this time as a result of the request by the Secretary-General of the United Nations for the supply of 24 1,000 lb. bombs for the use of the Canberra squadron stationed in the Congo.
As the House knows, throughout these troubled months in the Congo Her Majesty's Government have done their utmost to restrict the use of force and to bring about a reconciliation between the opposing groups. In particular, during the events of last September they endeavoured to prevent the conflict from spreading to air warfare.
This request of the Secretary-General was specifically related to the need for the United Nations to avoid a recurrence of the situation in September in which the lives of its troops were endangered by the operations of pirate aircraft. Since then, additional planes capable of military use have arrived in Katanga and have been in operation.
As I told the House last week, Her Majesty's Government fully recognise that the United Nations force must defend itself and its means of communication. They were very much alive to the dangers of allowing the United Nations forces, including those from Commonwealth countries, to be deprived of protection against air attacks.
With these matters in mind, Her Majesty's Government considered the Secretary-General's request. Her Majesty's Government recognised the reasons for it, but, at the same time, they were loath to see an intensification of the fighting by this means. At the request of Her Majesty's Government, the Secretary-General gave specific assurances in writing that the bombs would be used only against Katangan military aircraft on the ground and against the airstrips used by them.
The Secretary-General undertook to pass these assurances to the United Nations Command in Leopoldville with orders that they should be conveyed to commanders of the squadrons and to pilots in the field.
In these circumstances, and in view of these assurances, Her Majesty's Government decided to meet the Secretary-General's request. The United Nations itself is making the necessary arrangements for the collection of the bombs, which, we understand, will be carried out at the end of this week.
As I have repeatedly told the House, Her Majesty's Government have consistently supported the United Nations operation in the Congo and, equally consistently, we have urged the course of conciliation. We have always believed that the Congo should remain a viable entity within its existing frontiers. We have not supported or condoned a movement for secession of any part of the Congo. But the constitutional differences inside the Congo should be resolved by the Congolese themselves. The imposition of a political settlement by the United Nations is specifically excluded by the Security Council resolution of 9th August, 1960.
Her Majesty's Government are now seriously disturbed by the way in which the fighting in Katanga has developed. Attacks on non-military objectives, such as power stations, mines, dams, hospitals and private houses, have been reported, although some of these have not been confirmed. There has been some loss of civilian life in addition to military casualties.
Her Majesty's Government are also greatly concerned about certain statements which have been made over the week-end by both military and civil


United Nations officials in the Congo about their objectives in Katanga. In this connection, they are studying the important statement made by the Secretary-General last night, and, in particular, the latter part describing the purpose of the present military operation. They feel that aspects of this policy will have to be clarified before Her Majesty's Government feel that they can authorise the release of the bombs.
In his statement last night the Secretary-General also said:
I shall welcome any initiative which will enable us to achieve our aims as peacefully and as speedily as possible.
Her Majesty's Government believe that the first step must be to bring about an end to the fighting, and they are prepared to contribute to this in any way they can. Her Majesty's Government have already been seeking methods by which this can be achieved, and they will continue to do so in conjunction with like-minded Governments and the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is now equivocating from the position taken up last Friday, no doubt under pressure from the same group of hon. Members opposite? Is he aware that we agree with him that there must ultimately be a political settlement brought about by conciliation, and that the purpose of the present military operation is not to bring about a political settlement? But will not the right hon. Gentleman say that he accepts the United Nations resolution which says that there can be no political settlement until the mercenaries have been cleared out—

Sir R. Grimston: What about the United Nations' mercenaries?

Mr. Wilson: At any rate, it is known who is paying the United Nations' troops.
Will the right hon. Gentleman make it absolutely plain that he supports the operation to clear the mercenaries out so that negotiations can begin to get the right kind of political solution at the end of the day? Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that until we are a lot clearer about who is paying these mercenaries, and until their pay

masters are dealt with, there will be no peace in the Congo?

Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have appreciated that the United Nations itself has stated that this operation is not an operation for clearing mercenaries out of Katanga. What is going on with the United Nations force at the moment is declared to be a defence of its force against attacks which have all originated from the incident at the road block. It is a deplorable thing that the incident at the road bock should have led to fighting on this scale. Of course, Her Majesty's Government support the removal of mercenaries, and they have done so all the time.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what change there has been since last Friday. I described the disquiet which we have felt at some reports which have appeared. In particular, there was one of the Commanding General of the United Nations force saying that peace overtures from Mr. Tshombe would be rejected. That gave us cause for anxiety about the real meaning of the operation. Another was a report of an interview given by Mr. Linner, of Leopoldville, which appeared in the Swedish Press on Friday, and of which we received reports on Saturday, about the ultimate objective of the United Nations force in the Congo. The Secretary-General of the United Nations last night issued a statement saying that this was not United Nations policy, but we still have to clarify what the relationship is between the statement of the Secretary-General in New York and other statements being made in the Congo at the moment.

Mr. Turton: rose—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have the impression that the efforts to improve our acoustics have resulted in our picking up rather more of the conversation in undertones which is permitted to us than was the case before. Mr. Turton.

Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. Friend clarify two aspects of the situation? First, before the request was made for the bombs, was it made clear why the Indian Government had refused to send bombs from their own stock? Secondly,


will my right hon. Friend make quite clear what is the position about the release of the bombs during the week? Are we to understand that these bombs will not be released at the end of the week unless my right hon. Friend receives further assurances from the Secretary-General? Can he also explain how the use of these bombs can be in conformity with the purpose of the United Nations resolution of 21st February?

Mr. Heath: The Secretary-General of the United Nations stated that the United Kingdom was the only place from which these bombs could be obtained. That was the information given to us, on which we had to make our decision. I stated quite clearly the position about the dispatch of the bombs at the end of the week. I said that the Government must see these discrepancies in the policy statements of the United Nations clarified and sorted out before they can authorise release.

Mr. Wigg: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that when the Canberras were supplied to the Indian Government Her Majesty's Government did not themselves then supply at least 24 of the 1,000 lb. bombs? In other words, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether, from the knowledge of the Government—never mind what the Secretary-General says—the Indian Government had these bombs? Is it not a fact that it is obviously easier to supply bombs from India than from this country?

Mr. Heath: I regret that I cannot give the House any information about any stocks of bombs which the Indian Government may have.

Sir P. Agnew: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that Her Majesty's Government no longer regard themselves as being committed to supplying these bombs at all, and that they will have to judge, after consulting the House, whether satisfactory assurances can be given as to their use? Can he further assure us that they will not be used except with the approval of the agents of Her Majesty's Government on the spot, who can approve their use or withhold it?

Mr. Heath: I have explained to the House the reasons why Her Majesty's Government reached this decision. I

have also told the House that these matters must be clarified before the bombs are released, and that we must be assured that the undertaking given by the Secretary-General can be carried out right through the operational command in the Congo.

Mr. Grimond: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House one piece of information about Her Majesty's Government's attitude to the Katangan Government? The right hon. Gentleman said that these bombs are to be used against pirate aircraft. Does not that imply that not only the aircraft but all the forces of Mr. Tshombe are regarded as pirate forces, and that we do not recognise his Government at all? Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman said that the operation which is now going on is not to get rid of mercenaries. Can he tell the House what representations we are making to the United Nations about the ultimate object of this exercise? It seems clear that there is warfare between the Katangan Government and the United Nations, however much we deplore it, and that the United Nations is bound to be considerably concerned about the ultimate political solution. It would be folly to close our minds to that.

Mr. Heath: I used the word "pirate" to describe the attacks by "rogue" aircraft which began in September and have been going on again recently. That does not affect our view of the status of Mr. Tshombe's Government. We believe that it is a properly constituted and duly elected provincial Government in the Congo as a whole.
The last point made by the right hon. Gentleman is the crux of the matter. This is the reason why we have been urging that strife of this kind should be limited to the minimum, and that any force used by the United Nations in the defence of its own forces, its positions and its communications, should also be restricted to the utmost minimum. That, I believe, would be the desire of the whole House. Otherwise, if it extends beyond that, we come into the very difficult political situation which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Sir R. Grimston: May we take it from my right hon. Friend that his statement amounts to a definite undertaking that the bombs will not be dispatched—that


is, if they are dispatched at all—until after the House has discussed the matter on Thursday and possibly taken a vote?

Mr. Heath: The information we have had from the United Nations, which I have given to the House, was that the bombs would be collected at the end of this week—on Friday or Saturday.

Mr. A. Henderson: While the Government are making up their mind about the release of these bombs, will they enter into consultations with the Secretary-General of the United Nations with a view to his immediately inviting the main political leaders in the Congo to meet him, say, in a neutral place outside the Congo, in an endeavour to get a peaceful settlement of this problem on a basis which is just to all concerned?

Mr. Heath: I should have added, in reply to the supplementary Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston), that the provisions I referred to in my statement remain.
We will gladly pursue the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson). But I must explain that the consequence of that sentence in the Secretary-General's statement last night is that whereas, in a normal conflict, we look to the United Nations to provide mediation, in this case there is strife between the United Nations force and the forces in Katanga, and the Secretary-General is inviting mediation from outside. Therefore, we ourselves are pursuing this matter to see which is the best form of mediation to bring the fighting to an end.

Mr. McAdden: Will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to explain what value can possibly attach to assurances given by the Secretary-General of the United Nations as to the future use of these bombs when the military commander on the spot has so far shown himself incapable of distinguishing between hospitals and genuine military targets?

Mr. Heath: That is why we want to clarify these matters during the coming period, and to ensure that these operations and guarantees can be carried out.

Mr. Healey: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the statement by the Federal Prime Minister of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland this weekend that he would prevent the transportation of these bombs through Federal territory—a statement made in the course of a disgraceful attack on the policy of Her Majesty's Government and on the policy of the personnel of the United Nations in the Congo?
In view of the fact that foreign policy and defence are matters reserved to Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, is not the whole speech made by Sir Roy Welensky subversive of the Federal Constitution? Is it not the case that Sir Roy Welensky has no right whatever, constitutionally, for political foreign policy reasons, to threaten to veto the transportation of British bombs through the Federal territory to the United Nations forces in the Congo?

Mr. Heath: If the Prime Minister of the Federation is not responsible for external affairs, he may very well think that he has a right—and that he can take advantage of it when there is an opportunity—to criticise the policy of Her Majesty's Government, who are responsible for external affairs.
As the United Nations is responsible for transporting these bombs the last part of the hon. Member's supplementary question does not arise.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Will my right hon. Friend give some precision to his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) by giving the House a positive assurance that the bombs will not be dispatched until after the foreign affairs debate on Thursday?

Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir

Hon. Members: What?

Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is that people outside who support the "Ban the Bomb" movement are in gaol, or are being fined, while hon. Members opposite holding similar views go free?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend please assist the House in clarifying this one issue, which is totally indeterminate at the moment? If the


conditions in which the bombs would be used are so uncertain in the Government's mind, surely that must mean that the whole operation is also in doubt. How can Her Majesty's Government at one moment say that they support the United Nations and are prepared to finance the operation, and the next moment refuse to give the United Nations the very means to carry out the policy?

Mr. Heath: I have explained the cause of the doubts which have arisen in our minds. The wider issue of supporting the policy of the United Nations in the Congo is a subject we have debated many times in the past, and, no doubt, we shall debate it again very fully on Thursday.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, on both sides of the House, whatever opinions we may hold, we deprecate this sad affair in the Congo, and that we would all like to see it end in peace? But is he also aware that some of us sincerely believe that the present situation is due to vacillation and to vested interests playing a part in the area?
Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, consider, because the United Nations is involved, calling together some of the leaders of the Afro-Asian nations, together with non-colonial Powers, and asking them to consider this matter from the point of view of African and Asian nations?

Mr. Heath: We are prepared to consider any means of securing a cease-fire. As I have pointed out, we have already taken the initiative during the past few days, in conjunction with the Secretary-General, in trying to find ways and means of achieving a cease-fire. That is our purpose. It was our purpose last September, even though at that time and since we have been greatly criticised in certain quarters.
A conciliation committee is already in existence in the United Nations and it may be that in these circumstances it has a rôle to play. We would welcome any initiative taken. Meanwhile, we shall pursue those initiatives which we have already begun.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify a little further the reason why the Government changed their mind about the release of the

bombs between Friday and today? Am I right in understanding the right hon. Gentleman to say that it was because of certain statements made in the Congo by United Nations officials or representatives? If the inquiries which the Government are presumably making about these statements bring a satisfactory answer, may we take it that the Government will authorise the release of these bombs? Will he also explain precisely what all this has to do with Thursday's debate?

Mr. Heath: I think that, in view of the great interest in the House, hon. Members will want to discuss these very matters, in which the situation is very dangerous.
Among the causes of doubt which I mentioned were the remarks of General McKeown, which were reported in today's British and American Press, to the effect that peace overtures by Mr. Tshombe were to be rejected. That is not consistent with the policy expounded by the Secretary-General and emphasised again last night.
In addition, there was an interview in the Swedish Press with Mr. Linner, which has not, as far as we have been able to find out, been denied, although the Secretary-General says that it does not represent his views. Mr. Linner made it plain that he sees the long-term aim as being
…to force a political solution on the Katangans by smashing the military strength of the present political leadership.
He made several remarks of this kind. The report says that he wished to point out that he had carte blanche from U Thant, and said:
I have had completely free hands".
The Secretary-General, however, says that this is not the case. These matters gave us genuine cause for the gravest alarm, and it is absolutely right that they should be clarified at the earliest possible opportunity. Over the weekend we have been engaged in that process, and the Secretary-General has at least made his position clear.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I want to help the House about this. I am in the hands of the House, but I understand that Thursday's


debate is on the Motion for the Adjournment. In these circumstances, I have a feeling that we should not be trying to debate this matter irregularly now. I will allow the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition one more question, and then we must stop.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. My question relates to the arrangement for Thursday's debate. If the results of the Government's inquiries show that the United Nations policy is what the Government believed it to be last Friday, when they made the decision to release the bombs, may we take it that the Government will go ahead with that decision?

Mr. Heath: If we can be assured, in the course of this clarification, that the policy laid down by the Secretary-General is in accordance with the Security Council resolutions, and if he can give assurances that those resolutions are to be carried out throughout the Congo and Katanga, then the Government can adhere to their undertaking. As I said, the Government will only take steps, because the United Nations so arranged it, at the end of the week.

Sir T. Moore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the decision reached by the Government is one of the most shocking decisions that has ever been taken, and as we are all deeply humiliated that we should be intending to repeat the Hiroshima policy of destroying innocent human lives, surely you would allow us a few more questions to try to find out just what the Government's policy is?

Mr. Speaker: No. I have already indicated that in my view we should stop this matter now. I wish to apologise both to the Leader of the House and to the Leader of the Opposition for miscalling the Leader of the Opposition.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I beg to ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
an immediate British initiative in the United Nations Security Council to bring about a cease-fire in Katanga and the withdrawal of United Nations forces to their main base.

I apologise to you, Sir, in that the precise terms of the Motion with which I acquainted you this morning are not those of the Motion I am seeking leave to move. I judged that the terms of the Motion you were good enough to receive this morning would not be within the rules of order on the ground of anticipation of Thursday's debate. We now learn that the question of the bombs is reserved until after Thursday, but there remains the question of immediately bringing about a cease-fire and thus saving loss of life and damage to property not only of Africans, but of our own people as well.
I have here a telegram from someone who has a father and mother in Elizabethville. This matter is one of urgency. If Her Majesty's Government were to be so influenced by this House as to be able to bring a resolution before the Security Council to secure a cease-fire, that would prevent the further loss of life and damage to property which is in prospect.

Mr. Speaker: The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) asks leave to move the adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
an immediate British initiative in the United Nations Security Council to bring about a cease-fire in Katanga and the withdrawal of the United Nations forces to their main bases.
I cannot concede the noble Lord's application. It does not seem to me to come within the Standing Order.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the indecision of Her Majesty's Government regarding the provision of bombs for use by United Nations forces in the Congo.
I do not think that I need to establish that this is a definite matter. Mr. Speaker. Nothing is much more definite than a bomb. As for the urgency, I submit that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal has shown it to be that today. As for public importance, I cannot believe that there is a single citizen in this country who is not dismayed at the Minister's announcement.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) asks leave to move the adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the indecision of Her Majesty's Government regarding the provision of bombs for use by United Nations forces in the Congo.
There are few things less definite than indecision, and few less urgent than bombs which will remain where they are under the control of the Government until this House has debated the matter. I cannot concede to the application.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the failure of Her Majesty's Government to provide for the protection of British lives, property and interests in Katanga, attacked and threatened by the failure of United Nations forces to observe The Hague Convention and distinguish in their air and mortar bombardments between military and civilian targets.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) asks leave to move the adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the failure of Her Majesty's Government to provide for the protection of British lives, property and interests in Katanga, attacked and threatened by the failure of United Nations forces to observe The Hague Convention and distinguish in their air and mortar bombardments between military and civilian targets.
I cannot accept the Motion, which is clearly not within the Standing Order.

SUB JUDICE (RULE)

Mr. Paget: I desire to raise a quite different point of order, Mr. Speaker. I desire to ask whether you can be of some assistance over a problem which we feel may arise with reference to the application of the rule against sub judice, and the danger that it may unduly interfere with the performance by the House of its duties to the public.
Since the days when this rule came into being, which was in 1844, when the Government were prosecuting Daniel O'Connell, circumstances have changed

quite a lot, in particular with the main disappearance of the jury system. It is, therefore, not very easy to see that the purpose of the rule, which is to avoid prejudicing the trial of a matter awaiting adjudication in a court of law, can today, with seldom a jury at all or with quite different juries, have the same reality that it once had. I do not think that it had previously been realised—at least it had never occurred—that this rule applied to a civil action.
If it had been realised, and if it had been realised that anybody by issuing a writ could stop the action of this House, one can only think that the Marconi Company, on a famous occasion, could have stopped the agitation that gave rise to a famous inquiry simply by the issue of a writ, or that Mr. Sydney Stanley, on a more recent occasion, by the issue of a writ, could have done the same thing. Again, in a mining disaster, where people had great fears about the safety regulations, the issue of a writ might have halted it.
Perhaps the latest case is where a Minister is responsible for safety in the air. There is nothing more vital to that safety than the mind of the captains of aircraft and their feelings about liberty to take decisions which they regard as necessary to safety where that is in question. It seems strange and highly inconvenient that the issue of a writ, which need never be brought to trial, and, in any event, could probably not be brought to trial for a year, should halt the proceedings of this House and its performance of its duty to the public to demand an inquiry in the name of safety.
Therefore, I should be most grateful if you could give us your guidance, or suggest how it might be possible to bring this old rule up to the modern requirements of the House and the convenience of the public.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) for giving me warning about this, so that I could be sure that my advice was well-founded.
Supposing that it is thought, for instance, that the rule as it exists does not leave the Chair any or any adequate discretion on this or other matters which the hon. and learned Member was


urging, the proper procedure is for him to put down a Motion expressing what he believes our rule should be. Then, if it finds favour with the House, that becomes our operative rule on which we can all work, and by which we will all be bound.

Mr. Gaitskell: I should like to say how grateful we are for your Ruling, in which I take it that you are saying, in your experience, that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has made a point of some substance here and that this is a matter which the House should consider. May I, with permission, put it to you that it would be desirable if we settled this by agreement all round? This is a highly technical matter. Possibly, with your assistance, the Leader of the House and some of us on this side of the House might discuss it, with a view to getting an agreed Motion to put to the House.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I would favour the view that an agreed Motion would be ideal. It must not be taken that I am expressing any view about it one way or the other at this stage.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I would be glad to take part in any discussions which are suitable.

SIERRA LEONE (GIFT OF MACE)

Committee to consider of an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented on behalf of this House a Mace to the House of Representatives of Sierra Leone, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same, Tomorrow.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

RURAL TRANSPORT

4.10 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I beg to move,
That this House, deeply concerned to preserve the vitality, prosperity and emenities of the countryside, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take such steps as are necessary to secure adequate transport facilities in such areas.
I was fortunate enough to win first place in the Ballot for Private Members' Motions a fortnight ago and felt that this Motion was likely to command the interest of the House because it affects all parts of Great Britain and, therefore, many hon. Members would wish to speak partly on behalf of their own constituencies, as I do on behalf of mine.
None of us needs reminding of the poverty of the countryside in the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries. The 1914–1918 war provided a submarine threat to our country which put us in grave danger of starvation. It is interesting that towards the end of that war, the tractor, which is now so common throughout the countryside, was first introduced, I believe, from America.
In the 1920s, the great hope that agriculture might be put on a sounder and more prosperious footing was disappointed—I would almost say betrayed. At the end of the 1920s, the Labour Government of 1930–31 introduced the Agricultural Marketing Act, which led, under a Coalition Government, to the setting up of the Milk Marketing Board, which has done such great things for the country and for farming, and indeed, has brought about an agricultural revolution.
The Labour Government of that period were also responsible for the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which introduced a new licensing system for both passenger and road haulage transport to be administered by traffic commissioners. I emphasise that both these are examples of Government intervention.
Then came the 1939–45 war, which, again, brought to us the danger of starvation. We were saved only after the protracted Battle of the Atlantic, which brought fearful losses to our sailors, both of Her Majesty's Fleet and of the Merchant Navy.
The Agriculture Act, 1947, introduced by another Labour Government, again brought great hope to the countryside and immense benefit. No one in the House will dispute that. The countryside was rejuvenated. Today, the withdrawal of transport facilities, both rail and road, is putting the prosperity of the countryside in jeopardy.
The concern of hon. Members of this House about this aspect of our life is emphasised by the fact that in recent years there have been many Adjournment debates on the subject, one in 1955, another in 1956, two in 1957, three in 1958, three in 1960 and six this year already. This is the seventh debate on the subject this year. Most of these seven debates have been about the closure of railway lines.
I should like to make two quotations from the speech of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), when speaking in the debate on 3rd April, 1958. The hon. Member said:
It is tragic that the work which is being done to give the countryside a share of modern amenities should now be threatened by a collapse of the transport system…there should be a frank admission of the seriousness of the problem, and no glossing over it. It should be made clear that the countryside is threatened with a situation which would be economically disastrous for the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1958; Vol. 585, c. 1444–5.]
Those statements were made by a Conservative Member of the House, and a former junior Minister, no less than three and a half years ago, but they are as applicable today as they were then.
I wish to spend a fair amount of time on the question of the closure of branch railway lines, because it was the threatened closure of a line in my constituency, running into the constituency of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard), that suggested to me that this Motion would be worthy of discussion. I want, however, to take the debate into a rather wider sphere.
The 1960 Report of the Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee states, in paragraph 9, page 5, that 60 per cent. of all proposals for closure of railway lines go through without opposition and quite a number of contentious proposals are either amended or rejected as a result of hearings by area committees. There are eleven area committees. The

total savings of all line closures since 1948 amount to approximately £4½ million a year. Volume 2 of the Annual Report of the British Transport Commission for 1960 makes it clear, at page 16A, that the total working expenses of British Railways for the year 1960 were no less than £546 million. Taking the saving on closures of lines from 1948 to the end of 1960 of £4½ million, we find that only 0·8 of 1 per cent. of the working expenses of British Railways was saved by those closures. That, I suggest, is a comparatively insignificant sum.
We ought to take into account Dr. Beeching's proposals for reorganising British transport to meet the wishes of the Government. I suggest that his policy will be one of great ruthlessness, particularly concerning branch lines. Therefore, we as a House ought to consider how the Government will apply a policy of social need, because rural transport of all kinds is a social need if we are to maintain a prosperous countryside.
I want to draw attention to one aspect of consultative committees which is not generally realised. It is that the secretaries of the committees are officers seconded by the Commission. It will be obvious that the officers are dependent on the Commission for promotion, which every ambitious young officer will expect to get. However, each secretary has a dual responsibility. He has a responsibility to the Commission, which pays his salary and controls his prospects. He also has a duty to the consultative committee, which is the consumers' council and whose duty should be to ensure that the rights of the public and consumers are protected.
Having served for many years in local government with a dual responsibility, I can assure the House that I know something of what I am talking about. In the Electricity Act, 1957, the Government re-emphasised the provision contained in the 1947 Act that area consultative councils for electricity should have the right and power to appoint their own officers and not rely on staff seconded by the electricity boards.
That brings me to the proposed closure of the Gwinear Road-Helston Branch line. The proposal is to discontinue the passenger train service and amend the freight train service. The


county council and all local authorities in West Cornwall are alarmed and I have received a large number of letters about it from individuals, some chambers of commerce, the National Farmers' Union and, indeed, certain individual industries.
Not only the immediate area of the branch line, but the whole of the Lizard Peninsula within the constituency of the hon. Member for St. Ives is affected. It is an area of rich agricultural land which also produces early horticultural crops, a feature of the industry in West Cornwall. The line also serves the Naval Air Station at Culdrose. Indeed, the Admiralty has recently come to my own town of Camborne-Redruth to seek permission to erect there 125 houses for its personnel. We have a very efficient technical college for Cornwall in Camborne-Redruth. Many scholars from all over West Cornwall and East Cornwall are students at the Cornwall Technical College.
British Railways offer certain alternative bus routes, but they admit that at certain times of the year even these will be inadequate. I am sure that anyone with a knowledge of the area who examines the list will notice at once that it is grossly inadequate even now and there is no guarantee whatever that these services will be continued. Indeed, the main operator is the Western National Bus Company. All the shares in this company are owned by the British Transport Commission. The bus company will undoubtedly apply the same criterion of economic working as British Railways now apply. The Helston-Lizard motor bus service was probably one of the first in the country. I have not verified that, but I think that I am correct in saying so. It was initiated by the Great Western Railway, certainly in the first decade of the century.
The economy of the area depends largely on agriculture, horticulture and the holiday trade, plus the Culdrose Naval Air Station. Those hon. Members who know the Lizard Peninsula will agree that it is one of the finest and loveliest areas in the whole country. I add that the closure will hit hardest the elderly, the poorer people, and those without transport.
Section 3 of the Transport Act, 1947, set out the keystone of the Act when it stated that
it shall be the general duty of the Commission so to exercise their powers…as to provide, or secure or promote the provision of, an efficient, adequate, economical and properly integrated system of public inland transport…for passengers and goods…in such manner as to provide most efficiently and conveniently for the needs of the public, agriculture, commerce and industry".
The 1953 Act completely reversed the policies of all Governments for thirty years, which were to secure an adequate transport system. It instituted for the railways a fully commercial system and compelled the Transport Commission to dispose of many of its assets. It destroyed the prospects of any coordinated system of transport. Clause 3 of the Transport Bill, now in Standing Committee, merely says:
It shall be the duty of the Railways Board…to provide railway services in Great Britain and…such other services as appear…expedient, and to have due regard…to efficiency, economy and safety of operation.
That is all. It does not say that there must be an adequate system of public transport.
The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, in paragraphs 421 and 427 of its Report,
suggested that uneconomic services which the railways were required to provide on grounds of national interest or of social needs should be met by specific grant from public funds.
This is a quotation from paragraph 50 of the White Paper, Reorganisation of the Nationalised Transport Undertakings, published in December, 1960, Command 1248.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) said on the Second Reading of the Transport Bill:
…the 1947 Act clearly required something in the nature of a social service.
It is an attractive but most dangerous idea to regard transport as a social service…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 1197.]
I disagree with the hon. Member entirely. We cannot rely on a commercial system to provide adequately for the real needs of the countryside if the countryside is to remain live and vital.
A leaderette in the West Briton of 30th November, 1961, which is published in Truro, said:
One of the tasks of Cornish M.P.s of the future will be to ensure that no part of their constituency is compelled to return to the isolation of its Victorian past.
I do not think that we need go as far back as the Victorians, because I can recall when I was a younster people in my area who had never travelled more than four miles from their homes because there was inadequate public transport. I have seen people in my constituency walking four miles to save a 3d. bus fare, because they had not the money to pay it. That was in the old days, and I hope we are never again to see that state of affairs return to our country.
I must now refer to the Jack Report on Rural Bus Services. Many hon. Members will want to refer to that Report, I expect, because it was such an important milestone in the history of road transport in the rural areas, though the Government have yet to make any statement about how they will deal with the recommendations of that Report. The terms of reference of that Committee were:
to review present trends in rural bus services and in particular to enquire into the adequacy of those services; to consider possible methods of ensuring adequate services in future; and to make recommendations.
I draw attention to the fact that the word "adequate" appears there twice, and to the fact that these terms of reference were given by the Government themselves.
The Committee reported on 6th January, 1961, and the main conclusions and recommendations of paragraph 8 are:
…the present and probable future levels of rural bus services are not adequate to avoid a degree of hardship and inconvenience sufficient to call for special steps; and we recommend mainly a system of direct financial assistance, in part from local and in part from central sources, and administered through the County Councils.
Chapter 2 of the Report deals with the development of bus services, and Chapter 3 with the experience of other countries, particularly the United States, Sweden, Switzerland and West Germany, and it is noteworthy that in Switzerland, the Post Office operates a bus service

and is required to maintain this service in thinly populated areas. The same applies to West Germany.
Chapter 4 deals with the adequacy of rural bus services, Chapter 5 with un-remunerative services, Chapter 6 with possible solutions and Chapter 7 with the minibus, the village carrier and the postal bus. Chapter 8 deals with costs and fares, Chapter 9 with the fuel tax, and Chapter 10 with direct financial aid. There are three minority Reports, but I do not think that there is any need for me to go into any further detail, because there is enough there to occupy a full day's debate.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that the first minority Report, by Mr. W. T. James, showed in detail why the recommendations of the majority Report were impracticable in this country, except by a much greater expenditure than they thought?

Mr. Hayman: Minority Reports usually give reasons why those making them disagree with the majority recommendations, and I do not think there is any need to burden the House with further details of that kind.
On 28th March, of this year, the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) initiated a debate on rural transport, particularly dealing with the Jack Report. He said:
At the moment, there are good grounds for suggesting that the Government are in danger of breaking faith with the countryside, and I, for one, am not prepared to support them in doing that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1961; Vol. 637, c. 1299.]
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is still of the same opinion. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply, said:
It is quite likely that at a fairly early stage we shall have to consider consultation with a number of outside interests on the Committee's findings and recommendations.
Later, he said:
The only additional information which I can give him is that we shall reach our conclusions on this matter as speedily as we can."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 28th March, 1961; Vol. 637, c. 1302–3.]
That was nine months ago.
The Report deals with school buses, and, obviously, they will have to play a great part in the consideration which is


to be given to the future of rural transport. I could quote here an incident from my own county in which the substitution of contract vehicles contributed to a branch railway becoming uneconomic. In the opinion of the Cornwall Education Committee, the savings were so appreciable that it felt that it had no alternative. I expect that the figures which I shall quote for Cornwall will apply equally to every county in England.
The cost of school transport in 1951–52 was £64,000; in 1961–62, £167,000; in 1962–63, £175,000, nearly a threefold increase in eleven years, and amounting, approximately, to an 11d. rate now. Already, there are great difficulties for many students at technical colleges, of which I have already spoken. The position will be chaotic if many more bus and rail services are curtailed or abandoned. Surely, after all, if this country is to prosper, we must make the best use of all the technical facilities that are available, for the countryside as well as for the towns.
I will give one instance of what applies in my own constituency. Some senior students at evening classes at the Cornwall Technical College at Camborne-Redruth come from Falmouth, and they cannot get back home until eleven o'clock at night. These students have been at work all day before they begin a 12-mile bus ride to Camborne and then have a 12-mile ride back again.
The National Association of Parish Councils, in a letter dated 1st June, which was sent to the Ministry by the County Councils Association, says:
The decline of other forms of rural public transport increases the importance of the rural bus services. Every stage in their decline makes a policy decision more urgent.
Later in the letter, it is suggested
that the subsidy should be derived from the Exchequer, and should be administered through or on the recommendation of the Traffic Commissioners, who have more relevant experience than any other body.
I understand that the County Councils Association is strongly opposed to the suggestion that the county councils should contribute to the subsidy and should administer it, and I think that the County Councils Association is a body whose views we should take into account.
In my own county, I am informed that one nationalised industry expresses a preference for boys living in the immediate vicinity of the depot of that industry. Surely, that is an awful thing, because it condemns so many lads in the villages to no chance at all of getting into that industry.
One comparatively small factory in my constituency had to engage special buses because of the curtailment of public service vehicles. However, many hon. Members will want to emphasise other aspects of the situation and I will not refer to them now.
I want briefly to refer to the Journal of the Royal Society of Arts for October, 1960, which contains two lectures with subsequent discussions, one on "The structure and organisation of the transport system," by Mr. Gilbert J. Ponsonby, M.A., Member of the Institute of Transport, and the other on "Future developments of the internal system of transport," by Mr. D. L. Munby, M.A. They make excellent reading, but I will not deal with what they say now.
I cannot move a Motion of this sort without showing its implications for Great Britain as a whole. We now have for our consideration the preliminary Report of the 1961 Census. Referring to England it says that among the counties which have not kept all their natural increase—excess of births over deaths—or which have actually suffered a decline in population are Northumberland, Cumberland, Durham, Westmorland, the three Ridings of Yorkshire and Cornwall. That means that all the rural districts of England north of a line drawn from the Mersey to the Humber, and Cornwall, are becoming depopulated.
All the counties in Wales are suffering the same fate. The populations of the Welsh rural districts amount to 805,000. The total populations of rural districts in England and Wales are 9,250,000 and in the areas I have quoted the loss of population amounts to no less than 28·2 per cent. Of the 33 counties in Scotland, 15 had increases of population and 18 decreases. The landward population increased in 10 counties and decreased in 23.
I understand that the Scottish term "landward" means "rural". The seven


crofting counties had decreases of 2·8 per cent. compared with 2·5 per cent. between 1931 and 1951. The four Border counties had decreases of 6·3 per cent. compared with 2·2 per cent. between 1931 and 1951. Generally speaking, the increases have been confined to the Forth-Clyde area. In the decade 1951–61 the net loss by migration was 254,000, a figure higher than that of 248,000 in the 20-year period. 1931–51.
The lower age groups are those most affected. Wales has memories of the enforced migration of the inter-war years when Wales was seriously depopulated. In the century up to the financial crash on Wall Street in 1929, Cornwall's chief export was its young men. They went to every part of the globe. Are we to see that kind of thing again? It looks very much as though our proposed entry into the Common Market will have a serious effect on the countryside in Great Britain and that the concentration on the economics of transport will also hit the countryside.
An article in a daily newspaper last week described south-west Ireland as a land which was slowly bleeding to death and said that migration from Ireland amounted to 1,000 a wek, or a quarter of a million in five years. I draw attention to the fact that most of these areas, apart from those in the north of England, are the Celtic fringes of Great Britain. We ought as hon. Members, especially those of us who are Celts or who come from Celtic communities, to consider this subject very closely.
What will happen if the countryside is depopulated and there is another world war? I have mentioned what happened in 1917 when we faced near starvation, and the Battle of the Atlantic in the last war is clearly in all our minds. The countryside is our greatest asset both for feeding our bodies and refreshing us spiritually. Transport is the lifeblood of the countryside, but present Government policy seems to be directed towards the depopulation of rural areas. It negatives the Government's declared objective of steering industry into areas of high unemployment. As my constituency is one of those areas, I shall listen carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary's reply and I will closely watch the

Government's policies in the months to come.
I believe that a policy of the proper location of industry is vital to our wellbeing as a nation. We give vast agricultural subsidies and I suggest that the cross-subsidisation of rural transport by making small urban areas help to pay for the uneconomic country routes has reached saturation point, if it has hot gone beyond it. Subsidies are given to shipping services in the Highlands. The traffic commissioners already limit full freedom of operation, for both passenger and freight traffic, granting what are virtually monopoly certificates in certain cases. The Milk Marketing Board is a statutory authority which is efficient and which has revitalised farming in Britain.
Those are instances of Government intervention in industry. Why should we boggle at subsidising rural transport where there is a social need for it? I will not go beyond saying that an integrated system of public transport is absolutely essential. The fate of our countryside is at stake in this matter of public transport and I hope that the House will make it crystal clear that it requires the Government to keep rural Britain a green and pleasant land and to take such steps as are necessary to ensure the preservation of the countryside's vitality, prosperity and amenities.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard: The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) has given us a wealth of figures and statistics and, knowing that there are many hon. Members who wish to speak, I shall be brief, confining myself to a matter to which he referred and which affects both our constituencies, the closing of the Helston branch line, which is in my constituency.
It needs to be emphasised that in a memorandum from the railways it is stated that the matter has been under discussion with the bus company concerned, with a view to providing certain additional services, but that it is contended that those services could not possibly be provided on a remunerative basis. So it is a matter of "Heads you win, tails I lose." They do not say that they are going to give us any additional services.
The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne and I have had many letters from people saying that during the summer they cannot get on to a bus because they are crowded out with visitors. If this service cannot be run as a remunerative operation, why is there any objection to anybody else trying? So far as I can make out, the Western National Bus Company always objects to anybody else applying for a route. If it is no good to the Western National Bus Company, why should somebody else not be allowed to try? Why not let another bus operator try to provide a service?
The R.N.A.S. station which is in my constituency is a very important—indeed, a vital—training place for a certain branch of Royal Naval aviation. It is common knowledge that this station is to be increased in strength. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne has said that some approaches have been made about the building of houses in Camborne. I hope that they are built in Helston, because the residents in those houses will then not have so far to go to get to Culdrose and will not add to the already heavy traffic on the roads in summer.
From the horticultural point of view, like the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, I have had representations from the National Farmers' Union to the effect that it is not suitable to dispatch flowers or fruit on the buses. Representations which I support strongly have been made by the National Farmers' Union in appropriate quarters.
Perhaps one of the most important points on which the hon. Gentleman touched, and which I should like to emphasise, is the effect on the tourist trade if this branch line is closed. According to the paper with which we have been circularised, the authorities say, "That is all right. We will stop the expresses at more stations. Goodness knows, the Cornish Riviera Express is now slower than it was sixty years ago, and if it stopped at any other places it would not be an express at all. People would leave the train and try to get on to a bus which is already loaded. They would go to Helston if they were lucky enough to get on where they would have gone by train in any case. They would

then have to change from one bus to another to go out to the Lizard, another nine miles. This is not very encouraging to people wishing to spend their holidays in the Lizard area.
As the bus company cannot provide any additional services, and as no other operator is allowed to provide a service, I suggest that we approach the solution to the problem in this way. First, why not run a two-piece diesel unit? This has, I understand, been done at a place near my family home, Cirencester. If it can be done there, why can it not be done at Helston? If that cannot be done, what about attaching one passenger coach to the freight train? The freight train stops at all these stations.
It is not good enough to sit back and say that we cannot do these things. While I praise every effort to make the railways less extravagant, I think that it will never be possible to run them economically. The railways should be considered as a national asset, and they should be taken out of politics. In the present situation it is bad luck on the unfortunate railway employees, such as the guards and the ticket collectors, who come in contact with the public. They are the people who get all the kicks, not those who make these decisions in London and who do not see the public. The fact must be faced that although a branch line of this nature is run at a loss, it still renders a service.
There is a feeling that this is the thin end of the wedge and that the next step will be to close the freight service. I should like a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary on this matter of the buses, and I should like an assurance that if the passenger train service has to go, pressure will be brought to bear to increase the bus service. Failing that, I should like an assurance that we shall have either a two-unit diesel train or a passenger coach added to the freight train. Finally, I should like to be assured that the freight train service will not be closed in the foreseeable future.
I conclude by congratulating the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne on initiating this debate.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: I will follow the example of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) and speak briefly. I should like to join in


congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) on introducing this subject for debate, and on his excellent speech. We all know of my hon. Friend's great interest in the rural areas and of the contribution which has has made towards the public and social life of the area.
I speak on this matter probably from a broader angle than someone who is interested merely in the rural areas. I have had considerable experience in road transport problems and I think that I can speak with some knowledge on these matters as they affect both the rural and urban areas.
I do not think that we can consider rural bus transport in isolation. It is part of a wider issue, and is indicative of the national trend arising from heavy taxation. There is no industry in the country so heavily taxed as the passenger transport industry. It bears a tax which strikes at the very heart of this type of public service. There is no other industry which has contributed so much to the industrial and social life of the nation but which has received such harsh taxation at the hands of Parliament.
Let me consider the special position of the bus undertaking. What is not clearly understood by Members of Parliament and the general public is that the road passenger transport service is in an entirely different category from that of the road haulage undertaking. Yet, strangely enough, it is more heavily taxed by Parliament. The road haulage undertaking is concerned in the main with transporting a full load from one given point to another. It can choose its load from the point of view of whether it is desirable or profitable, and it is not expected by the State or by the general public to transport goods at a loss to the undertaking. In point of fact, the road haulage organisation is akin to ordinary industrial practices. It is a commercial undertaking plying for hire for profit.
The position of the bus undertaking is entirely different. I have said this time and time again in the House, but it does not appear to have aroused the type of support that one might have thought would have been the case. The bus undertaking is an entirely different

proposition. Every bus undertaking is licensed by the traffic commissioners. It has to maintain a reasonable scheduled service. Its fares are controlled by the traffic commissioners. Its passenger-carrying potential is subject to restriction by weather or by the changing habits of travel of the public. Full or empty, the buses have to run their scheduled services.
It is generally known that most of the bus services carry a high percentage of unremunerative mileage. This was brought out most forcibly by the evidence submitted to the Jack Committee on Rural Bus Services. For instance, the Scottish omnibus group stated that it was maintaining 355 unremunerative services out of a total of 747. This represents 24 per cent. of the total yearly mileage. Its loss for the year 1958, given in evidence before the Committee, in providing these non-paying services was estimated at some £587,000.
The Birmingham and Midland Omnibus Company Ltd. reported that, in 1958, 64 per cent. of its services and 32 per cent. of its mileage were unremunerative. The Public Transport Association, representing as it does all forms of road passenger transport, submitted a report to the Committee which showed that in the case of 19 representative companies extensively concerned with rural services the mileage of unremunerative rural stage carriage services had increased from 31·9 million miles in 1938 to 36·8 million miles in 1948 and to 55·1 million miles in 1958.
The road passenger transport industry has always recognised its obligation to provide a reasonable public service. It has willingly carried a reasonable percentage of non-paying mileage, but there is a limit beyond which it can go. Apart from the inevitable losses which must arise from the provision of unremunerative services, the bus undertakings are faced with declining traffic arising from the increase in the use of private cars and motor-cycles. Then there is the kindly motorist who gives a lift in his car to two or three of his friends travelling to and from work and the large building contractors who provide their own transport for the thousands of workers whom they employ in all parts of the country. All these factors are causing the present financial difficulties in our rural and urban transport.
There is yet another difficulty. It is the shortage of bus crews. The rates of pay and the conditions of employment have not kept pace with those prevailing in other industries. The industry does not now attract the better type of recruits. Staff come and go. After being trained rather expensively they leave, and it has become an extremely costly business. As a matter of fact, even the London Transport Executive is having to use agencies overseas to get recruits from our Colonies in order to try to maintain its transport system. I believe, and I have said so from time to time in the House, though without very much success, that nothing short of a bold, positive overall transport policy will meet the requirements of the community in the future.
I wish to deal briefly with two of the recommendations of the Jack Committee. I refer to the argument about reduced fuel oil taxation and or direct subsidy. I think that the most astonishing recommendation in the majority Report is that which suggests a kind of joint financial grant to rural services contributed partly by the Exchequer, on the one hand, and the county councils, on the other. No wonder that the recommendation was rejected immediately by the more practical members of the Committee, and no wonder it is opposed by the county councils and by the County Councils Association.
I have had considerable experience as a member of a county council and I know the very strong feelings of the urban areas now because they are, in the main, having to provide the public services to the derated rural areas. I know the strong feeling that always existed between urban residents who felt this to be an injustice which the county boroughs did not have to bear. I am positive that the suggestion that the county council ratepayers should make a financial contribution towards providing rural bus services is an absolutely astonishing one in view of the fact that the Government are raking off millions of pounds in taxation on the fuel oil used by bus undertakings.
I come to what must be my final point. What is the remedy? I know that it is very easy to criticise recommendations of committees and the views of Ministers. On those who criticise rests the

responsibility of putting forward a remedy which they think suits the case. I believe that the remedy to this problem lies in the lifting from the shoulders of the bus undertakings the heavy and unjustified penal taxation on fuel oil. I do not think that it can be done purely in respect of rural mileage. That is something which it is difficult to define, and, in any case, it would not provide a permanent solution to the problem. No one can justify the heavy fuel oil taxation on the bus undertaking which is a public service. Industry is free from such taxation although it uses by far the greatest amount of fuel oil.
My first suggestion to the Minister, therefore, is that the tax on fuel oil should be remitted entirely. This would enable the bus industry, which, in the main, is run on fuel oil, to provide those unremunerative services which are required in the rural areas and to staff their industry so that they could provide a proper and efficient service for the community. This would be the most sensible solution of the problem.

Mr. John Morris: Does my hon. Friend realise that, if the policy which he suggests were put into force, it would result in an indiscriminate remission of fuel oil tax to bus companies? Bus companies operating in urban areas would reap the benefits in addition to those in the rural areas. The Jack Report states that the gross profit of some of these companies per mile would be considerably increased, and cites, for example, the Tilling Group, where it would have been double that of 1958.

Mr. McLeavy: I do not accept what my hon. Friend says. It is misconceived, for this reason. The fuel oil tax is not payable by any other section of industry which uses fuel oil. Why discriminate between a manufacturing industry and an industry which is a semi-social service? With regard to the other point that my hon. Friend raised about benefiting the urban areas, I thought that I had pointed out that the services in the urban areas and, indeed, in the city areas are being seriously curtailed between peak hour periods because it is impossible to carry so much un-remunerative mileage.
My hon. Friend also referred to the profits of the private companies. He


knows very well that I am the last man to be worried very much about the profits of private industry. However, let us be fair to private industry and recognise that the private bus undertakings have made a contribution to the bus services in the rural and urban areas at a considerable loss of profit because of their public-spirited attitude to the provision of transport for the community. I pay my tribute unreservedly to the privately-owned and municipally-owned bus undertakings which have made such a sacrifice in order that many unremunerative services may be provided for the community.
I am all in favour of a full remission of taxation on fuel oil to allow bus undertakings to carry out their responsibilities and, incidentally, to allow the traffic commissioners the right to ask the bus undertakings to restore some of the rural services which have been abandoned because of the financial situation. I think that my solution would deal with the point that my hon. Friend raised.
I come to my second point.

Mr. Rupert Speir: Last point.

Mr. McLeavy: I come to my second point, and it is this. If the Government feel that they are unable, because of financial considerations, to give a full remission of taxation on fuel oil to bus undertakings, they should fall back on another way of assisting the bus industry. I suggest that they should spread the gross yield of the taxation on fuel oil over all the users of it. When I made inquires about this matter from the Treasury some time ago, probably about two years ago, I understood that, if the present amount that the Treasury received in fuel oil taxation were obtained by spreading the charge over all of the users, the tax would amount to just over 3d. per gallon.
I say this in all seriousness to the Minister. I know that this is not a matter that the Minister can solve merely as the Minister of Transport. It is something which must be examined by the Treasury. It must be the subject of a decision by the Cabinet. But sooner or later they will have to look at the whole of the transport problem and decide what is the best solution. I said when the Jack Committee was appointed—and I do not withdraw

the remark—that it was merely a device to delay a decision by the Government on this important matter. Twelve months or more have passed since the Report was published. I wonder how long we should have waited for a debate in this House on the matter if my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne had not seized the opportunity to raise it today.
This is the sort of thing to which I take objection. First, the ex-Minister of Transport who is now Minister of Defence—he is more to blame than the present Minister—pretended that he was so concerned about this problem that he wanted a committee to report on it. I told him at the time that the Ministry of Transport had in its files the complete answer to this problem. It knew all the facts before the Committee reported, and yet we have these delaying tactics, and then another delay of twelve months. Surely the time has come—

Mr. G. Wilson: In fairness to both Ministers of Transport, I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Jack Committee was far from unanimous and recommended a variety of things which contradicted one another.

Mr. McLeavy: I have never disputed that the Jack Committee was far from being unanimous, but the point is that if my advice had been accepted by the then Minister of Transport there would have been no Jack Committee. The Minister had at his disposal all the necessary evidence on which a remedy could have been based.
In conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I apologise for talking so long, but if hon. Gentleman who say "Hear, hear" are happy about the position, and are satisfied with the muddle that has occurred over the last few years, and think that the position is good enough for the agricultural electors, I do not.
If this problem had a direct and serious effect on farmers, who out of the subsidies they receive are able to provide their own cars, we should have had a remedy more than five years ago. It is only because the problem affects ordinary agricultural workers and their families, and the small residents in the countryside, that the farmers and their organisations are being lukewarm about the matter. I tried to tease them in a


letter I wrote to The Times about six months ago, but nothing happened.
It is a scandal that bus services in the urban and rural areas are declining, and that we have not been able to obtain from the Government a sensible solution to a grave and serious problem.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Robert Mathew: I congratulate the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) on his good fortune in the Ballot and on his wisdom in choosing this subject for discussion. Ever since I have been in the House this has been a recurring theme for discussion, especially in private Members' time, but, as other hon. Members have emphasised, we have seen no action taken by the Government.
Successive Ministers have refused to grasp the nettle. I agree that it is a complicated and difficult problem, as anyone who studies the Jack Committee Report can see, but in the meanwhile the problem is growing year by year, and, as more and more amenities become available to the townsmen in this age of supermarkets, super-launderettes, super-entertainment and super-buses, and so on, a minority of the population who live and work in the countryside in isolated areas have lost in the provision of amenities.
As progress has been made, albeit too slow in providing electricity and piped water, so one reads every week of country cinemas closing down. We have heard of branch railway lines being closed, and we know that more are to be closed as a result of the new policy, and we have heard of unremunerative bus services being taken off. Therefore, as progress is being made in providing greater amenities, especially by way of transport and recreation, to the majority of people, the minority, those living in the country, are becoming worse off.
Hon. Members often speak eloquently of the drift from the land. I think that the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) was a little less than fair in saying that farmers and their organisations have stood by indifferent to this development. I attend my branch meetings of the National Farmers' Union, and time and again farmers—and not affluent farmers—say that they want to

see the status of the agricultural worker lifted to something comparable to that of those who work in industry.

Mr. G. Wilson: Does my hon. Friend recollect that the Report by David St. John Thomas on Rural Transport Conditions published in the Lake District Transport Report pointed out that a considerable number of small farmers did not have cars and were dependent on public transport?

Mr. Mathew: That is particularly true even in my county which lies on the civilised side of the Tamar. We do not come from the Celtic fringe. I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
When we talk of status, it is not only a matter of money or wages. The drift to which hon. Members refer is a drift towards better amenities, and many of the things which the countryman had on his doorstep a few years ago are no longer there, and can be found only in the towns. Therefore, unless he has transport, he cannot take his family to enjoy them. However difficult the problem, a decision must be taken, and it cannot now be long delayed. To put it rather crudely, the Government have dithered long enough about this.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, East that the majority of the conclusions of the Jack Report are unworkable. I am convinced that the expense of a county council subsidy would be far greater than the Committee calculated. Secondly, it would be administratively very difficult, because, as we all know, many of these routes run across county boundaries. Thirdly, if we are to have a system of this sort well administered, we should get as far away from local politics as possible. This is a matter of a public service. There should be no party political interest in it at all, and no regional interests should be concerned. It should be done by an administrator, especially if there is any question of grants, subsidies, or remission of tax, where there could be abuses which would have to be guarded against.
Whichever system is chosen to help bring transport to these isolated areas, it should be as simple as possible, and as economic as possible. We must avoid anything which would bring top-heavy administration, and with it the increased danger of abuse. I agreed with some of


the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Bradford, East, but a remittance of fuel oil tax on the scale suggested by him is quite out of the question, partly for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), and partly because of its huge expense. I suggest that the real solution is a simple adaption of the suggestion made by Mr. James, in his minority Report, where he came down on the side of selective remittances of fuel oil tax. This is simple, and could be done without setting up a great deal of machinery and a great many safeguards.

Mr. Speir: Would it solve the problem?

Mr. Mathew: I am not saying that it would solve every aspect of it, in all areas, but I am certain that in the very worst cases, where people are extremely isolated, it would make a great contribution, and that we would see a large number of services arising in those areas as a result of this incentive.
What I am suggesting is that anyone who is willing to operate a regular service between an isolated place—having the right to pick up in the area—to the local town centre or to a point where regular services are available, should be granted by the traffic commissioners in the area an allocation of duty-free fuel. I have in mind not necessarily existing operators. They might be big or small operators, people with large buses or mini-buses, even a village taxi-man or a private individual with a large car who is willing to undertake this service.
I have also in mind in certain villages of the type which are so isolated in the West Country a volunteer service, perhaps twice a week, run by an enterprising and public-spirited vicar or a retired person willing to do this for his community. If I am asked whether this will make the service economic, I suggest that a grant for maintenance of the vehicle in certain cases could be made by the licensing authority.
I am convinced that the traffic commissioners are the right people to administer such a service and that it should not be put in the hands of county councils. Already, in dealing with passenger service vehicles, the traffic commissioners have to decide the question of need. I would also point out

that the Jack Report refers to the difficulties about defining a rural area. I am certain that every traffic commissioner in the country has a very good idea of every part of his area which is starved of transport, because he will have had request after request about it and will have been in constant communication with local bus companies, asking them to run yet another unremunerative service to meet the need of isolated people. He would have to decide the size and allocation of the grant.
On the other side—because where one has two types of petrol, one with a duty remission, there is always a danger of abuse, as we know from our experience of petrol rationing—there are the regional transport office inspectors who can ensure that the services are run regularly and that there is no abuse. So there would be no heavy administration and no very great addition to the expense.
Lastly, I would urge upon my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that what hon. Members on both sides of the House are asking for is action. A decision must be taken. The problem is getting worse and worse. Whatever system is devised, let it be simple and speedy.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. T. W. Jones: I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) upon his luck in the Ballot and upon choosing this subject for discussion. Like me, he represents a preponderantly rural constituency, and, like me, he must feel very perturbed about the prevalent situation in his constituency, which is a purely rural one, just as mine is.
We had a debate on this subject in relation to the Principality at a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee exactly twelve months ago. But the situation has worsened in the meantime. It is because of that that I feel that one or two of the things I said then will bear repetition, and, indeed, should be re-emphasised in this larger Assembly.
I believe that transport services in rural areas should be regarded as a social service—that is my philosophy—and should be placed in the same category as the postal services and every


other service provided by the State. For this purpose, the profit motive should be relegated to a secondary position. In this respect, I do not agree with half the things that one hon. Member said about the bus undertakings.
The House cannot afford to ignore the persistent depopulation of our rural areas. We cannot afford to let our economy become top-heavy or lopsided. To build up flourishing urban areas at the expense of depleting and strangling the rural areas is a sure way to eventual economic disaster.
One reason for the persistent drift from the countryside is obvious. Young people are not content to be deprived of the amenities which make life so much fuller in the urban areas. They maintain—no one can blame them—that what is good enough for the urban dweller should be regarded as good enough also for the rural dweller.
The other day I was in a farm house where the occupants had seen their first television programme only three months previously. They were now able to enjoy that amenity because they had been connected to the electricity grid. When I asked them whether they realised that it did not pay the electricity board to provide that service, they readily recognised that. I am sure hon. Members will not be surprised to know that I made a party point by telling them that they would never had had electricity if the industry had not been nationalised by the Labour Government.

Mr. Speir: What about the railways?

Mr. Jones: Yes, the railways have been nationalised, but they are being run by the same people as ran them previously, which I have from time to time criticised in the House.
Here we have an instance of a nationalised industry where profit is not the deciding factor in relation to the needs of the rural areas. I am not so naive as to believe that the nationalised electricity undertaking is running at a loss. Overall it makes a substantial profit annually. What I wish to emphasise is that it is the service motive and not the profit motive which decides its policy. My contention is that the same policy should actuate the Transport Commission and the Ministry of Transport in

respect of rural transport facilities. I am prepared to agree that an overwhelming case can be made here and there for closing certain railway branch lines, but even then, surely other means of transport should be provided for the inhabitants of the villages and hamlets who have been deprived of these services.
Until recently in my constituency Bala and Blaenau Ffestiniog were connected by rail, a distance of about 22 miles. That service has been discontinued and it may surprise hon. Members to learn that it now takes 10 hours to travel from Bala to Blaenau Ffestiniog and back again. As I say, this is a distance of only 22 miles and once I could walk it in less time.
The closure of this branch line followed the recommendation of the transport users' consultative committee which was satisfied—according to the Report—that a better alternative than the railway would be provided by road access to Blaenau Ffestiniog. It was for that reason that the committee came to its decision; that a better road and a good bus service would join the two places. The Bala Urban Council wrote to Crosville Motor Services Limited asking for a bus, but got a blank refusal in reply. I am glad to have this on record because when this road is completed the Minister of Transport will be approached by the respective councils—of Bala and Blaenau Ffestiniog—to have this bus service instituted.
Crosville Motor Services has a monopoly on passenger traffic in North Wales and a monopoly of this kind presupposes a responsibility towards the travelling public on the part of that company in the remote villages as much as those living in the urban areas. It appears that the company has been bitten by the same bug as the Transport Commission, for it uses the same inevitable terminology—"it does not pay". One can anticipate a reply along these lines whenever one writes on this subject. Twelve months ago I received a letter from the clerk of the Penllyn Rural District Council. Penllyn is in Merioneth and is the rural area of Bala, to which I referred. The clerk wrote to me, and this is very illuminating:
The bus operators appear to be too ready to discontinue services with the same excuse


'that it does not pay'. One service has been discontinued which, for the life of me, I am unable to understand. As you are aware, a fair is held at Bala on the second Thursday of the month and a sale on the fourth Thursday. There is no actual difference between the two, only in name.
This is only a matter of terminology, and I have seen the suffering that can result from terminological inexactitudes.
The letter continues:
The same people travel to Bala for both events"—
for the fair and the sale, which are virtually the same—
and Crosville run a bus service into the outlying areas on these days in particular, on the fair day they run a service to Llidiardau, but for some obscure reason they have withdrawn the service, yet it is the same people who patronise the service on both days.
It does not make sense. But one comes up against this problem throughout the county and whenever representations are made all we are told is that "it does not pay".
Transport facilities in rural areas of this kind should be regarded as a social service. I should like to quote from a letter I received from the secretary of the county branch of the National Farmers' Union, which contains an interesting suggestion. It states:
…there are still many small hamlets without a bus service and this county branch considers that it would be useful to merge the postal service with a public passenger service by means of a suitably adapted mini-bus.
That is a very novel suggestion and one which could be put into practice. I hope that as a result of this short debate we shall receive some encouragement from the Minister.

5.46 p.m.

Sir Gerald Wills: I, too, would like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) on his success in the Ballot and on raising this subject.
No hon. Member from a wide-ranging rural constituency—and mine covers half of Exmoor, which is certainly wide-ranging and rural—can fail to be concerned at the reduction in public transport facilities which has taken place in past years. They are getting less and less and the convenience of the public suffers. Contrary to what many people in the towns seem to believe, many people living in villages and rural areas

do not have motor cars and a great number of them, for some reason or other, do not want to ride scooters, bicycles or motor cycles. Nevertheless, like so many other people, they want to get to the local towns to do their shopping, meet their friends, visit the market and perhaps go to the cinema. They are finding it increasingly difficult to do this.
Many of them—certainly those in my constituency, although the situation has improved—do not possess television sets, because there is no electricity and they are thus spared the treat of seeing the faces of some hon. Members. Nevertheless, they can hear their voices on their radio sets. In many cases public transport—or what little there is of it—gets to the towns too late and leaves too early to give people an adequate time in which to do all the things they want to do.
Education has already been referred to and since I wish to be brief I shall not deal with that matter. There is no doubt that the situation is getting worse and that unless something is done and policy decisions are made soon it will get worse still. I am, therefore, asking my hon. Friend to tell us that something will be done, that policy decisions will be taken, and as quickly as possible. As railway branch lines are closed more communities will be even more isolated than they are at present.
We must remember, too, that the types of buses used on the normal country routes are not really the right type to cater for the traffic as branch lines are closed. I often wonder how trunks and suitcases and the other impediments of the traveller can be adequately dealt with by the buses at present used on these routes. The type of buses used at airports would be more suitable for this task. These vehicles enable luggage to be loaded and taken out easily. I appreciate that other things are also needed, but this type of bus would certainly be of help, say, to the mother with six children who must board and alight with them and all her bits and pieces which she would normally take on a rail journey. The present type of omnibus is not manned or made to cater sufficiently well for such travellers by road who have been used to travelling by branch lines. As branch lines are closed, this different type of bus should be made


available so that in country districts it can link with the main line station.
It is very difficult for a townsman to realise what life in the remote countryside is like. This Motion seems aimed to bringing to our minds the fact that there is a considerable difference between living in the town and in the country. The townsman sees the countryside during the summer holidays when it is looking beautiful. He does not know what it is like when there is snow and rain and mud up to one's knees. We owe some consideration to the people who live and work in the countryside and produce the food which those in the towns eat.
We want to keep those workers in the countryside. We want to keep them happy and to give them as many of the amenities of town life as we can, within reason, bring there. One too often hears of young people leaving the countryside because of the lack of amenity. Many young wives prefer life in the towns. Contrary to what has been said, farmers are concerned about the lack of young people in the country districts. They are worried about the future and about whether they will get young men to work on their farms as they have done in the past. We shall not be able to preserve the life of the rural areas unless we do our best to bring some of the normal amenities of life to them.
We have a duty, more especially as these branch lines close, to do what we can to bring the right sort of transport to them. Whether we can do that by means of subsidy or grant, or a combination of the two, I do not know. Whether we use the recommendations of the Jack Committee's Report, or use some of them, something should be done about this matter as soon as possible.
There is a strong case to deal with this special problem in an exceptional way if we are to retain people in the countryside, keep it viable and alive, as we want it to be, so that we can continue to enjoy the fruits of the labour of those who live and work in it.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: If the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir G. Wills) came to my constituency and spoke in a Nonconformist

chapel as he has spoken this afternoon, he would have another "call" because of the charming way in which he has put forward the requirements of people in the countryside. The only point on which I disagree with him is that I do not call these things amenities, but necessities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman), who moved the Motion, himself referred to amenities but I prefer to call them necessities. Rural transport is a necessity. In my constituency, which is a very large one, this is a big problem, especially in Brecon. What is to replace the closed branch lines, four of them, in Brecon?
Already sixteen branch lines have been closed in Wales since 1955. Some of my hon. Friends and I have put on the Order Paper a Motion about the closure of lines in Monmouthshire, which, for this purpose, includes the Brynmawr to Newport, Monmouth line.
Paragraph 6 of the last Annual Report of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for Wales and Monmouthshire says:
We can only hope that the Jack Committee's findings will include some recommendation which will help the Consultative Committees to solve the problem presented to them by the need for finding reasonable alternative for displaced railways passengers.
I put the query to the Minister. What is to replace the closing of lines in my constituency? We have had experience in Radnorshire where lines have been closed and the Transport Commission has said that we have alternative transport, but in twelve months that transport has been closed down. When we got into touch with the Commission, to our astonishment we were told, "That is not our problem now. Go to the transport users' consultative committee. Take your case there." These places are left high and dry without any transport service. Mid-Wales Motorways, Ltd. presented evidence to the Jack Committee saying that since 1954 thirteen market services have been withdrawn. Its fleet strength was down from 60 to 45 since 1950 and its staff had been reduced from 76 to 52. It stated:
There are areas which his company serves within which the continuation of existing services must depend very largely upon the outcome of the present Inquiry.


I join with the hon. Member for Bridgwater in thinking that the Government ought to make up their minds about what to do in this situation. The Chairman of the Western Welsh Omnibus Co., Ltd., at the annual meeting in July this year, said that 60 per cent. of its routes, or 35 per cent. of its total mileage, failed to earn the average cost figure, mainly on rural services.
In the White Paper on Government Action in Wales and Monmouthshire, 1960, there is a paragraph about rural transport services, which says that 774 services were granted a dispensation from the need to carry conductors. One does not like that kind of thing, but it shows the seriousness of the situation.
As several hon. Members said, the question of rural transport makes its contribution to the depopulation of the countryside. In the last census, in 1961, it was shown that the rural districts of Wales had this great problem to face. In Caernarvonshire there was a 7·9 per cent. decrease over 1951, in Cardiganshire it was 2·9 per cent., in Denbighshire 2·3 per cent., in Flint 1·8 per cent., in Merionethshire 9·2 per cent. in Montgomeryshire 7·5 per cent., and in Radnorshire 10·8 per cent. Some of the rural districts in those areas had such large percentages as 11·8 per cent. in Tregaron, and 14·6 per cent. in Knighton in Radnorshire.
I was surprised to read the speech of Lord Brecon when he addressed the Conservative Association in Llandrindod Wells last Tuesday. Incidentally, at that time I was with the chairman of the Welsh B.B.C. on behalf on my constituents inaugurating a television service. Lord Brecon said to his audience:
Not one of you has come by train.
I do not suppose that he would be asked to do so, but if he had addressed my constituency party he would find that some of the members could not come to a meeting by car because they have no cars. Farm workers have no chance of getting to central places because there is no transport for them. Lord Brecon could have said that he agreed with this or that recommendation of the Jack Committee's Report, but he said that he was
not sure how this problem could be solved.
The Minister will not say tonight that he can solve it, but the House is entitled

to know what is being done by the Government to meet the recommendations of the Jack Committee.
On the problem of depopulation in mid-Wales, the Jack Committee sent a sub committee to examine this transport question. There is a transport panel of the Council for Wales and Monmouth of which the chairman is my constituent, Alderman E. Kinsey Morgan. That panel has presented a Report to the Council for Wales. In replying to the debate, will the Minister say whether the Government will publish the Report as a White Paper on the problem of rural transport in the whole of Wales? In the Jack Committee's Report and the Report of this Council, there is surely sufficient evidence available for something to be done.
I asked for something to be done immediately, because I understand from the Radnorshire Association of Parish Councils that there are more than fifty communities in Radnorshire without a service, or without a service operating every day of the week. There are places like Bleddfa with no bus or railway service. There forestry and other workers and small farmers have no method of transport. The Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association is continually trying to encourage industrialists from the Midlands to come to Mid-Wales and other parts of Wales. In its Report it said:
Any closure of Mid-Wales lines or reduction of services serves to make even more difficult the task of attracting industry to the area.
It is similar in other counties where contractors and employers have to use their own transport to bring workers on to a job because of lack of public transport facilities. There are two famous forestry estates, Tirabad and Llwynygog, where there are no transport facilities whatever. There is a cluster of forestry holdings in the centre of a great rural area with no transport facilities, or with very inadequate facilities.
Not one hon. Member in this debate has said that the Government have been good about this matter. Therefore, I do not envy the Parliamentary Secretary who has to reply to the debate. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) about the question of fuel tax remissions. I hope that there will be remission,


because I do not like taxes of any kind, but I do not agree with the idea of applying it to those who make big profits. However, fuel oil is not used in all buses. They use petrol. Three-fifths of the buses in Mid-Wales use petrol. I favour a direct financial aid to operators on specific routes.
Why cannot these special operators be given a direct subsidy in the same way as civil aviation operators get a direct subsidy when operating in the Scottish islands? What is the difference? I am sure that my constituents, even the Conservative ones, would not object to a subsidy being granted to bus operators in the same way as subsidy is paid to farmers. Hon. Members may ask how it could be applied. I would apply it to the traffic commissioners and pay it per cost mile on rural routes. I should not differentiate if a bus route started in a rural district and went to an urban town.
I think that the problem is summed up in a letter which I received only last week. I did not then know that this debate was to take place. A nurse wrote to me from the General Hospital, Hereford saying:
May I on behalf of several members of the nursing staff employed at the above hospital, point out that this particular line"—
the Brecon to Hereford line—
is our only means of transportation to and from homes in various parts of Breconshire and Radnorshire. I myself live in the village of Llyswen and as you are probably aware there is not a bus service in existence except on the Hereford Market day. If indeed the authorities decide to close the line we shall in all probability have to seek employment elsewhere.
That would be a tragedy. There is a great shortage of nurses at present, and it would be a tragedy if they had to give up employment in Hereford Hospital because of the closure of a railway line and had to seek employment in other urban areas, adding to rural depopulation.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some encouragement, and, if he cannot obtain sufficient information from the Jack Committee's Report, will look at the matter again after information has been provided from Wales and Scotland, too. The debate merits a reasoned reply from the Government Front Bench which I hope

will be satisfactory not only to myself and to others on the Celtic fringe of Cornwall and Wales who have been seeking to speak in the debate but also to all hon. Members who are interested in rural transport problems.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) spoke with feeling and eloquence about rural transport problems. Both sides of the House are united in hoping that the Government will find at least a partial solution to the problem. I suppose that we are agreed that a complete solution is probably very difficult to find.
This is an acute problem, although it is not new. Various hon. Members have drawn attention to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) has done a lot about it. But it goes back a very long way. A former Member of the House many years ago investigated the kind of problem which we are discussing tonight. It was no less a problem 140 years ago, and his method of transport in those days was horseback. I refer to Cobbett's Rural Rides He had a lot of interesting things to say about the countryside and his remarks were somewhat more robust than some which we have heard today.
Nevertheless, these problems are very acute and the Jack Committee has set them out quite well, showing the kind of difficulties with which country people are faced. One interesting feature of the Report was the fact that the growth of private transport is greater in country districts than in the towns, despite the fact that, relatively, country people are much worse off than those in the towns. As the Committee points out, they are forced to buy private transport simply because public transport is not adequate for their needs. This does not mean that they can afford it. The first point which I want to make is that the petrol tax bears particularly hardly on them. They can ill afford private transport in any event, and the petrol tax was roughly doubled between 1950 and 1952. I hope that the Chancellor will bear in mind that to quite a large extent the petrol tax is a penal tax, particularly on country people.
The difficulty is accentuated at the moment. We have debated the Second


Reading of the Transport Bill, and from that debate we gathered that more branch lines are liable to be closed. Indeed, the main communication between my part of the country, Dorset, and the Midlands is threatened with closure at this very moment. We are also told that new roads will be denied us in the country districts, for fairly understandable reasons, because those roads need to be between towns, and the present stress is laid on urban motorways.
At this very moment, the bus services, far from increasing, are decreasing. The Jack Report gave a figure of 1,700,000 passenger-miles decrease a year, which is quite a large figure in the country districts, and the costs of operating country buses are rising all the time. How can this challenge be met? Here it is difficult to achieve unanimity. Indeed, there has been some division in the House tonight about what is the best way. The first solution listed by the Jack Report deals with the licensing system, and the first question which we should ask ourselves is haw far the 1930 licensing system—for that is what it is; it is not an old system—is still justified.
On Second Reading of the Transport Bill the other day we were discussing ways of freeing the railways from their old obligations, freeing them from restrictions on fares—they will be able to put up fares in London without the paraphernalia of going first to the Commissioners—and from their old common carrier obligations. How far is the licensing system necessary today when it is difficult to get operators at all rather than being a question of sorting out competing operators? I am not sure. I suppose that the traffic commissioners have done a good job and that there is a case for continuing them.
I want to turn to what seemed to me the more promising solutions. The majority recommendation of the Jack Committee was that there should be direct financial aid, but I am not much enamoured of this. One reason is that rural county councils such as my own can ill afford the contribution of a half or a quarter of the subsidy. Moreover, we want to keep politics out of this. Another reason which occurs to me is that once we start a subsidy, all the operators will apply for it, and it may not achieve all that is desired.
I support the view of the first minority Report in which Mr. James came down in favour of a selective remission of the fuel tax, not by having petrol drawn from a different source but by making a remission according to the number of rural stage-miles that any operator covers, remitting the tax by taking into account the type of vehicle which is used to ensure that they do not get too much.
I wonder whether we could not go further than that and have a method of granting a remission of fuel tax to operators provided that a certain percentage of their journeys are carried out in rural areas and outside urban areas. I understand that the commissioners can determine that quite easily. If operators fulfilled that condition they would have a remission of tax, which could be more than the total amount remitted in the other circumstances. The remission would be weighted to encourage the operators, some of whom are quite large companies and groups, to continue their rural services in order to earn this remission, and that would, therefore, be better than a flat remission on the mileage which they covered in rural areas.
I admit that the problem is not easy and that any steps taken can only be a mitigation. The petrol tax imposed on the private car is one of the problems. Nevertheless, I hope that a method will be found of keeping the buses going as long as possible. The trend undoubtedly will be for them gradually to operate less, as has been the case in America and other countries. But that is not an argument for not keeping the routes open as long as we can by any reasonable method. I hope that this problem will not drag on much longer, for it is about a year since we had the Report. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us something definite this evening.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I am extremely sorry that so many hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish to take part in the debate are unable to do so owing to lack of time. This is in part due to the fact that there was a long statement after Questions today. It is high time that the rules of the House were changed so that if time is taken at the beginning of the debate, it is added at the end of the debate.


[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hope that the authorities will take note of that suggestion, which apparently has the support of all sides of the House.
May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman), who introduced the Motion, both on his good fortune in the Ballot and on the most helpful speech which he made introducing the debate. My hon. Friend and I have a good deal in common. We both belong to what he called the Celtic fringe, and we both represent constituencies of great beauty and character. Unfortunately they are constituencies with considerable problems, such as unemployment, depopulation, lack of amenities and the relative poverty of the local authorities.
By and large, in the context of the debate, the country can be divided into two parts. To the east and south there is relative prosperity, security of employment and adequate amenities. In the west and north there are lower standards. It is true that there is the tourist trade in the summer, and we are very glad of it and grateful to those who work in it, but we do not wish our constituencies to become merely the summer playground of more prosperous areas.

Mr. Denys Bullard: The hon. Member said that the east is more prosperous than the west. That may on the whole be true, but I hope that he will make allowance for the fact that there is a very considerable rural transport problem in the east, especially near the coast, but that speakers in today's debate have been almost confined to Wales, and the west and the southwest of England. Will he make full allowance for that?

Mr. Hughes: With the greatest pleasure. I was drawing a rough line, and in the east I will include the hon. Member's constituency within the area of which I speak. But, in general, the division which I have mentioned is right.
We are dealing today with one aspect of a larger problem of the amenities—that of rural communications; and we could not be dealing with it at a more opportune time, which is why we should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member

for Falmouth and Camborne for giving us the opportunity of this debate today. The Railways Board, under the provisions of the Transport Bill and in pursuance of the Government's policy, will no doubt close many more railway branch lines.
In my view the writing is on the wall. We have the warning of the County of Monmouth, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins). If the Minister tells the Railways Board that it must break even in five years, as I understand is the case, it will have no alternative but to curtail branch line services extensively.
I do not think that anyone would defend the proposition that all branch lines should be kept open even though their receipts are negligible, but surely there are branch lines—I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary agrees—which are well supported and which provide a vital public service, although they do not show a profit, and which are fulfilling an important function. This, of course, is the point of controversy. Each case should be considered on its merits, and the whole economic and social background should be taken into account. Now that the recommendations of the transport users' consultative committees will go straight to the Minister of Transport instead of going to the central Committee, the House will want to know on what criteria the Minister will be considering these cases.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) pointed out so graphically, if we begin to think in terms of granting amenities to rural authorities solely on the basis of profit and loss, the rural areas will never get the amenities they desire and deserve. It may also be a short-sighted policy. Last year the Government introduced the Local Employment Act, which offers incentives to industries if they enter areas of high unemployment. But the closure of some branch lines may be a disincentive to industry. I am thinking of areas in Cornwall, Mid-Wales and Scotland, where industry is most needed. I know from experience that one question asked by industrialists making inquiries about these areas is, "What rail facilities have you in the area?" If we curtail the services in this way in


areas scheduled under the Local Employment Act we make them less attractive to the industrialists whom the Government say they wish to attract to those areas. The Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend should bear that point in mind.
I now turn to the question of road transport. Here we are fortunate in having before us the Report of the Committee presided over by Professor D. T. Jack. I thank him and his colleagues for the excellent work that they have done, and for the Report they have produced. Criticisms of that Report have been expressed today, but it has made it possible for us to consider the entire subject far more intelligently and comprehensively than would otherwise have been the case. To that extent, whatever we may think about the recommendations, we should be grateful to the Committee.
I also hope that we shall not be finishing with the Report today. For some time I have felt that we should have a full debate on the Report in Government time. When business questions have been asked hon. Members on both sides of the House have requested that time should be given to debate the Report, and I hope that there will be further opportunities for us to raise the matters with which the Report deals.

Mr. Speir: We have had plenty of debate and discussion. Let us have some action.

Mr. Hughes: That is a matter for the hon. Member's right hon. Friend. I shall be coming to that point in a moment, if the hon. Member will contain himself.
I say again that I hope that we shall not finish with the Report today, because many hon. Members will wish to make their views known. I shall not go into the Report in detail because of lack of time, but I want to mention some of its salient points. First, the Report makes it quite clear that considerable hardship is caused in country areas because of inadequate transport facilities. Paragraph 78 says:
In order to give some idea of the order of hardship involved, we have heard of housewives living in villages with no bus service within two to three miles and able to reach the local shopping centre only by hiring a taxi at considerable expense; of a woman with small children who had to push her pram some

two miles along steep and narrow roads to the nearest bus; of young girls who, on leaving school, were unable to obtain employment because of the absence of a daily service to the nearest town but were too young to move into lodgings which their starting wages in any case would not cover; and of elderly people able to leave their village only on rare occasions when they can afford to share a taxi. These are the cases where 'hardship' seems a more appropriate description than inconvenience'.
The Report contains other examples of hardship and inconvenience.
If nothing is done, and if the pattern of 1957–60 is repeated during the next few years, this hardship will obviously increase. During the period from 1957–60 the annual mileage of rural bus services was reduced by 18 million miles a year. If this rate continues there will be a further reduction of over 90 million miles by the end of 1965. Side by side with this we will have many closures of branch lines.

Mr. Harold Davies: And canals. [Laughter.] It is no good laughing; some of them are useful.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is raising another problem, but I am certain that what he says is true.
We must consider two arguments which may be advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary at this point. The first is that when a branch line is closed a condition may be made that there is a new or improved bus service to fill the gap. The second is that during the next few years there will be a great increase in private vehicles to compensate for any curtailment of public services. There is substance in both points, but we must remember that these substitute bus services are in many cases withdrawn after an initial period. People then have neither a train nor a bus service.
There is also merit in the argument that many more privately registered cars will be on the roads. Appendix C of the Report shows this very clearly. This will, however, have the effect of reducing the receipts of bus operators. If we have more cars on the roads there will be fewer passengers in the buses, and the bus operators will receive less money. They may then curtail the services still further, with the result that the residual proportion of the population still without private cars will have to face greater hardship than before. This is a vicious spiral.
After considering all the possible solutions, the Jack Committee came down firmly in favour of direct financial aid to be administered by the county councils. There has been much reference to that point in the debate. Arguments have been adduced both for and against the recommendations. I should like to have a good deal more information about the working of such a scheme before I came down finally in its favour. I should like to know what share of the financial burden will be borne by the county councils. The councils involved are those in the less wealthy areas, and the burden they would be called upon to bear could be beyond their means. There is also the question whether such a scheme could be effectively operated under the present administrative set-up of the bus industry. It is, none the less, worthy of careful consideration by the Government.
Then there is the question of the fuel tax, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby). This tax should be reviewed. Its remission in full or in part would certainly not provide a full-time solution to the problem. This is made abundantly clear in the Report. Nevertheless, selective remission would provide a breathing space. It could be introduced fairly easily, and it would fill the gap for a few years while more permanent solutions were contemplated.
Finally, it should be made clear that the Government are responsible for the mess in which rural transport now finds itself. Criticism of the Government has come not merely from my hon. Friends but from hon. Members in all parts of the House. We must conclude that there is no national plan and no national policy. There can be no final solution until we have a properly integrated passenger transport system covering all travellers and all areas. That is the only true answer to the problem. Those of us who occasionally go back for interesting historical reading to "Britain Strong and Free" which was the Conservative Party Manifesto in 1951, read some revealing things.
Great pledges were made at that time and they won the election for the party opposite. On of them was that:
Every practical step will be taken"—

inter alia—
to hasten the provision of better…transport in the rural areas.
I do not want to make an unfair criticism, but the Parliamentary Secretary must recognise that things are infinitely more grave in the rural areas now than they were in 1951 when that promise was made.
What have the Government done in the intervening years? They have had ten years to improve transport and communications in the rural areas, but the situation now is far worse than it was then. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the House whether now at last the Government have a policy. What is the policy? What observations has the hon. Gentleman to make on the recommendations of the Jack Committee? The House is entitled to know. We do not wish to wait another year or more before we receive information about the Government's policy. Let us know today.
Will there be remission, in whole or in part, of fuel tax, or will there be direct financial assistance? If the hon. Gentleman does not give us a satisfactory reply, we can only come to the conclusion that the Government wish to see the depopulation of the rural areas continuing. If it continues, some of the best areas in the country—Mid-Wales, Scotland, the north of England and Cornwall—will be denuded of their best men and women and the country will lose one of its sturdiest breeds. I ask the hon. Gentleman to treat this plea from the whole House with the greatest seriousness. If he gives a reply which is vague and devious, we shall raise the matter again, but I hope that he will respond with proposals which will satisfy the whole House.

Mr. A. V. Hilton: On a point of order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which I regard as of great importance? Was it your intention that this debate should be confined to speakers from Wales and the West Country? I ask the question because I represent a rural constituency and so far every speaker, with one exception, has come from Wales or the West Country. How can I put the transport problems of Norfolk and of my constituents in particular to the House in these circumstances?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that any point of order arises. I am very sorry that time has not made it possible to call more hon. Members who wished to speak.

6.37 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): Perhaps the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) will be glad to know that there is an hon. Member from a rural constituency in some part of the United Kingdom other than Wales or the south-west of England who is now about to speak.
This has been a constructive and helpful debate. I would say, without wishing in any way to appear patronising, that the standard of discussion has been extremely high. I am most grateful to hon. Members for the care with which they have put forward the difficulties and the possibilities of their solution. I have listened to the whole debate and I hope that I will be forgiven if I do not reply to all the points made and if I do not comment on and reply to each of the individual local cases of closures of branch lines and withdrawals of bus services which, as I expected, have been deployed in the last two or three hours.
I want to come to the very heart of this important and difficult problem. I think that in many ways it is not nearly so simple as some hon. Members have suggested. I have noted running through almost all the speeches the theme that the rural areas are now becoming starved of transport. This is not so.

Mr. Speir: Of public transport.

Mr. Hay: As my hon. Friend has just said, what has happened is that some parts of the country are becoming starved of public transport but, overall, the picture we have is of substantial transport facilities of all kinds still available in these rural areas.
The rural problem is an aspect of one of the two great problems that dominate transport not only in Britain but in every industrialised country. On the one hand, there is the big contest between road and rail and, on the other, the contest between public and private transport. The rural problem is a direct reflection of both of these, but particularly of the second because the rural

transport problem in Britain's countryside is basically due to the growth of private personal transport owned by the people who live there. There are other factors, some of which have been mentioned in the debate and some not.
Mention has been made of television in a somewhat different connection but, as the Jack Committee's Report makes perfectly clear, one of the major difficulties for bus operators in rural areas has been the growth of television. People no longer travel in the evenings to the towns for entertainment. They stay at home at their own firesides and watch television. This has been a potent factor in causing a decline in passenger journeys and occupied seats on the buses. There has also been an increase in mobile shops and delivery vans to housewives in rural areas, and there have been changes in the pattern of employment in the countryside. Many other factors come into the picture, but the big problem is the growth of private against public transport.
The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes), who introduced a somewhat partisan note in his address, said that the whole situation was in a mess and it was largely due to the Government's lack of policy. He implied that what we had said in "Britain Strong and Free" in 1951 had not been carried out. Ten years had gone by, he said, and the transport situation in the rural areas had become worse.
What has happened? In Great Britain in 1950 there were 2¼ million motor cars. In 1960, after the ten years to which the hon. Member referred, there were 5½ million motor cars, an increase of about 3¼ million. The estimates of the Road Research Laboratory show that in 1965 there will be about 10 million and by 1970 about 13 million motor cars. I am quoting the figures for cars, motor cycles and mopeds which have been and are being used by people living in the rural areas. At the same time the number of buses and coaches in use has remained roughly static.
I can give the House another illustration. In August last year we carried out our annual traffic census and we found that for every 100 miles travelled by bus or coach in 1954 only 89 were travelled in 1960, whereas for cars the figure was 182 miles travelled compared with 100 in 1954. This growth of private vehicle


ownership has been particularly marked in the rural areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) made this point forcibly. It was noted by the Jack Committee in paragraph 18 of its Report when it said:
There is also evidence that the ratio of private cars to the population is higher in rural areas than in urban areas…

Mr. C. Hughes: Would the hon. Gentleman accept also that the public transport facilities for people without cars have deteriorated in the last ten years?

Mr. Hay: That is what the debate is about and that is what I want to talk about. If the hon. Member will contain himself for a moment or two I will come to it.
As I was saying, there is evidence, as the Jack Committee pointed out, that the ratio of private cars to the population is higher in the rural than in the urban areas. In Great Britain as a whole, there is one car for every nine people. In Cornwall, there is one car for every seven people. In Anglesey, again there is one car for every seven people. In other parts of Wales—in Montgomeryshire, for example—the figure is even better, one car for every six people.

Mr. Hayman: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that that is only what would be expected, and that in the great urban areas the number of cars would not be so high?

Mr. Hay: Yes, but hon. Members opposite—I am not turning this into a party debate—cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that, as the hon. Member has just said it, and in the same breath say that the rural areas are being starved of transport.

Mr. Hayman: Public transport.

Mr. Hay: As I said earlier, there is a lot of transport but a diminishing amount of public transport. That is what the debate is about.
The decline in public transport services both bus and rail, has been substantial over the last few years, but we have to keep a sense of proportion about it. As we see the picture in the Ministry of Transport, the decline is there but it is not noticeably rapid. It is continuous.

It goes on all the time, but there is no speeding up of the process. There has been a dwindling away all the time.
Let me give an example. In the twelve months to 31st March last, in the Western traffic area six bus services were withdrawn but five of those services were, and still are, wholly or partly covered by services which continue to run. The other one, which served a route which is no longer covered, ran over 4½ miles in each direction one day a week and in the last six weeks that it ran, there were only two people per journey. The decline is there and the figures show a decline, but it is not quite as bad sometimes as it seems.
The question that we in this House and the country as a whole must face is basically a simple one. This is a decline which has been going on. Should we as a nation take special measures to prevent it going on? Obviously, that would involve some form of assistance, because we cannot physically prevent people who have bought their cars and motor cycles from using them and insist that they travel by bus or by train.
Should we, therefore, take measures to prevent it, or should we accept the situation? There is a school of thought which holds the view that this is part of a longterm economic and social trend which need not necessarily—I emphasise those words—be to the disadvantage of the country as a whole. Questions of this kind cannot be conclusively and finally answered without a good deal of searching thought and consideration.
There are many factors and points that have to be taken into account before coming to a decision. There is the question of rural depopulation—the demographic problem—to which a number of hon. Members, and particularly the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne and the hon. Member for Anglesey have referred. I detected a temptation on the part of a number of hon. Members who mentioned this to attribute the lack of adequate public transport as the cause and not the symptom of rural depopulation.

Mr. Hayman: One of the causes.

Mr. Hay: Yes, but there is a tendency for many people to imagine that what is causing rural depopulation is the


absence or lack of public transport facilities. All the evidence that we have—indeed, it emerges from a number of the documents such as the Jack Report—goes to show that that is not the case, and that the absence or the decline of public transport facilities in the rural areas is a symptom of the fact that the pattern of work in the countryside is changing, for all sorts of other reasons.
Then, there is the question of hardship. Is there intolerable hardship, or is there only inconvenience? The Jack Committee, in paragraph 9 of its Report, which summarised some of the other parts of it, came to the conclusion that hardship was undoubtedly involved to a small number of people, and that the degree of hardship might well be severe in individual cases, but that there was inconvenience to quite a lot of people. This view is borne out by conclusions reached by Mr. David St. John Thomas, who has written two admirable reports on rural transport, one generally and one on the Lake District, which, I expect, hon. Members have seen.
We must not forget that some cases of hardship, or, it may be, inconvenience, are always met in the countryside by a measure of neighbourly help. A lot of people who have a car are prepared to give a lift into the town on market day to their neighbours or friends, particularly if they know of an elderly person who has no means of transport of his own. There is a good deal of this sort of neighbourly assistance. I do not suggest that it is an answer to the problem, but it is a factor which has to be taken into account when weighing up the degree of hardship.
Then, there is the position of the bus industry itself. It is quite a big industry, employing, I understand, in the provincial areas at least, about 150,000 people whose jobs are to some extent involved in all this. It is a user of the products of an important part of the motor industry, products which have a good export sale.
Then, there is the position of the railways. As the House knows, there is a substantial operating deficit on the railways of £80 million a year. The Transport Commission is receiving direct Government financial assistance above the line, which this year will amount to about £130 million, to meet its deficit.

One is inclined to ask oneself how much of that deficit is due to uneconomic services which the Commission runs in the rural areas.
Dr. Beeching is having a number of traffic studies made. I hope that when these studies are completed and necessary data has been provided, we shall be able to come to a conclusion and to answer that question. I know that many hon. Members are concerned about the closing of railway lines in their constituencies and about what, if anything, will fill the gap which will be created. The hon. Member for Anglesey and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) both asked about this.
On some lines, traffic has been so light that there is no gap to close. In the case of other lines, buses have been, and will continue to be, provided. This is the best way of trying to move people in the small numbers involved. The very fact that a railway service is withdrawn means that it was originally founded on the belief that there would be a comparatively large number of people to be moved regularly and that the number has dwindled away. The bus is much more flexible and much smaller to carry these smaller numbers of people. Therefore, in the rest of what I say, I hope that hon. Members will understand me if I concentrate on the bus rather than the rail aspect of the rural transport problem.

Mr. Hilton: Before the hon. Gentleman finishes on the question of closing the uneconomic sections of the railways, will he agree that to close them will throw additional traffic on to the road—more buses and more lorries to carry the goods formerly carried by trains?
My question is this. The roads, especially in Norfolk, are in a shocking state already. If the railways have to be closed in certain areas, will the Parliamentary Secretary make sure that additional money is made available to the county councils to bring the roads up to the necessary standard to carry the additional traffic?

Mr. Hay: I thought that the ingenuity of the hon. Member would sooner or later manage to get into the debate the point which he no doubt would have made if he made a speech. We always have regard to transport needs, whether


public or private, in deciding our road investment programme. We shall continue to do that in the years ahead.
I was dealing with some of the factors—not necessarily all of them—which have to be taken into account in dealing with these matters. I said that we must choose the course which we are to follow. Are we in this situation and against this background to give some measure of assistance to rural bus services in particular or, on the other hand, should we accept the change as being an inevitable one, long term?
On this point, however, I am quite clear. I do not think that we should or could embark on a large scale scheme of financial assistance to prop up services, whether they are bus or rail services, which are uneconomic or even downright loss-making on the sole ground that inconvenience or even hardship is being experienced by a limited number of people. After all, the plain fact is that the present difficulties are caused by a fall in demand in rural areas. I suggest that it would need very conclusive evidence indeed of severe and widespread hardship before we could justify State financial intervention on a large scale.
Because decisions on these questions are of great importance and are difficult, I must tell the House that the Government will need a little more time to reach them. I am sorry that I must disappoint hon. Members. I do not intend tonight to announce new policies or announce our decisions on the Jack Report. We have just received and published the Report of the Highland Transport Inquiry, which has not been referred to in the debate. I do not blame hon. Members for that, because it was issued only last Friday. This is a Report of an Inquiry set up by the Scottish Transport Council and the Advisory Panel on the Highlands and Islands. It is concerned with bus services in the Highlands and Islands. In that area there are many special aspects of this general national problem. What is interesting is that both the Jack Report and the Report of the Highland Transport Inquiry call for a subsidy for bus operators in respect of their rural services. They differ on the way in which such a subsidy should be administered. The Jack Report suggests that it should be done through county councils.

The Highland Transport Inquiry Report suggests that it would be better not to choose that course but to do it through an ad hoc authority.
In any event, whatever be the machinery by which one were to distribute the money, it would still be a subsidy. There are an increasing number of people in this country who today feel that we have too many subsidies already. Should we pay a subsidy for something which is uneconomic? Presumably we should pay one only if there is clear evidence of a grave and widespread social problem.
I regret that I must leave the question in the air, but that is exactly why the Government do not intend to be rushed into a decision on this matter. It is very easy to call for a subsidy. It is very easy for a Government to give a subsidy. It is very difficult indeed to take off a subsidy once it has been given. Temporary subsidies have an unfortunate habit in this country of becoming permanent ones. As our French friends say, Rien ne dure comme le provisoire. This is one of the things that we must have very much in mind.
I have concentrated on the financial side, particularly as regards buses, because the one thing on which everybody agrees when discussing the rural transport problem is that the problem is basically a financial one. There is a remarkable lack of unanimity on how the financial problem should be dealt with. Here I should like to say something about the remission of fuel tax to which the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) and other hon. Members referred. The Minority Reports of the Jack Committee held that this in some form or other was a solution to the problem. This is what the bus industry itself would like and its representatives have said so on a number of occasions in no uncertain terms. However, the Majority Report of the Jack Committee is of importance. After all, remission of fuel tax would cost, according to the Jack Report, about £12 million. I have reason to think that today the figure might be nearer £15½ million, but it is a large sum in any event.
The Majority Report of the Jack Committee rejected a remission of fuel tax on a number of grounds. The Report


said that it would be too sweeping and too imprecise. The Report said that it would create almost insoluble problems of defining what was a rural area, as opposed to an urban area. It pointed out that much more relief would in fact be given to the bus industry by remission of fuel tax than was justified by the facts. It pointed out, finally, that any solution of this kind could be only temporary and short term.
There is a further point which is not made by the Jack Report but which the Government certainly wish to make, namely that remission of fuel tax, in whatever form one chose to do it, would in effect be another form of subsidy. It would be a concealed subsidy, but it would be a subsidy nevertheless.

Mr. McLeavy: The Jack Committee's Report considered the remission of fuel oil tax only in respect of rural areas. My point was that there should be total remission of fuel oil tax for the whole passenger transport industry.

Mr. Hay: I understand that. A number of permutations and different alternatives have been put forward at different times, but all involve the surrender of revenue by the Exchequer. To that extent, since the tax is imposed over everyone who uses a motor vehicle, in effect a subsidy for somebody would be involved in this.
A large number of other remedies than financial ones have been proposed, but I am afraid that time does not allow me to go into them in any detail. There are such devices as higher fares, adjustments of the licensing system, and better use of the village carrier for passengers as well as for goods. It has been suggested that there should be a system of postal buses as they have on the Continent. It has been suggested that school buses should carry ordinary fare paying passengers where there are spare seats. It has been suggested that the minibus should be used much more widely than it is. Any of these methods can be used to meet a particular local situation, and many of them are used. However, according to the views of the Jack Committee—I think the Committee is right about this—even if we did all these things in combination we should still not find a complete solution to the problem.
All that I have been saying and all the considerations I have put to the House go to show that much more thought is still needed before we are able to come to a final decision. This thought should be directed to the basic question whether or not the decline in rural services, in a climate of the increasing use of private transport, should be artificially stayed by the financial intervention of the State. This is the question the Government are not yet ready to answer. I must make it clear that if the House passes the Motion, which
calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take such steps as are necessary to secure adequate transport facilities
in the countryside, the Government will not be prepared to hasten into precipitate decisions on this matter. We should not be doing our duty to the country as a whole if we did.
The Government welcome the debate. We welcome the thoughtful contributions that have been made. The debate will assist us greatly in coming to our decisions, and we shall make them as soon as we can.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Rupert Speir: In the few seconds remaining I feel that I must take the opportunity of saying that the reply of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has been most disappointing. We have heard the same reiterations of the problems. We have had the same cackle which we have had year after year, whilst the problems have become worse and worse. It is a great pity that during the past year, when the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary might have been looking into the problem of rural transport, they have spent so much time dealing with luxury travel across the Atlantic.
I must remind the Parliamentary Secretary that in our election addresses, time and again we have promised that rural transport would be given consideration. Indeed, it is encouraging to think that after all these years there are many other hon. Members who are alive to the seriousness of the problem. I must warn the Parliamentary Secretary—

It being Seven o'clock, the proceedings on the Motion lapsed pursuant to Order [1st November].

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (SHIPPING SERVICES)

7.1 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I beg to move,
That the Undertaking between the Secretary of State for Scotland ad David MacBrayne Limited, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th November, be approved.
I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if we discuss the three Undertakings standing in my name together. I hope that is agreeable, because I have understood that it is so.

Mr. Speaker: If that is the accepted course, that will be all right. It might avoid having to repeat the arguments later.

Mr. Maclay: The reason for the draft Undertaking with David MacBrayne, Limited, for which I seek approval tonight, is that the existing agreement with MacBrayne's, which was approved by the House in 1952, comes to an end on 31st December, and means must be found to enable these essential services to be continued after that day. The draft agreement with the Orkney Islands Shipping Company is to enable that company to take over and operate essential sea services from Kirkwall to the North Isles of Orkney. This new company is taking over from the Orkney Steam Navigation Company, which has maintained the services so far, but which, for a variety of reasons, has found itself unable to continue to do so. The second Orkney agreement, with the Orkney Steam Navigation Company, provides, in effect, for transitional arrangements between that company and its successor.
The Government's objective throughout, is having regard to the particular circumstances of each case, to negotiate arrangements which would answer the following criteria: first, the maintenance and improvement of essential services; secondly, the most effective form of management, having regard to the particular circumstances; thirdly, the needs of the area to be served; and fourthly, the protection of the taxpayer. The patterns which have emerged are not identical, but, as I hope to make clear, are those most suited to the circumstances of each case.
The Motion before the House continues the process begun with the High

lands and Islands Shipping Services Act, which the House passed last year. That Act enables the Secretary of State to give assistance in various ways in order to maintain and improve shipping services in the Highlands and Islands. It requires him, if he proposes in any case to make advances exceeding £10,000 in any year, to do so only in accordance with an undertaking a draft of which has been laid before Parliament and approved by the House.
Dealing first with the draft MacBrayne agreement, this follows generally the agreement with that company in 1952. As hon. Members know, Government assistance has been given to MacBraynes to maintain certain approved services by sea and road in the Western Highlands and Islands since 1928. Up to now, assistance has been given under arrangements made jointly by the Minister of Transport and the Postmaster-General, but the 1960 Act provided that the Secretary of State should in future be the Minister responsible. Now that the Post Office is operating on a commercial basis, the carriage of mails will be undertaken by the company as an ordinary commercial transaction under a separate commercial contract with the Postmaster-General.
The main changes from the 1952 agreement are financial. Hon. Members will see in Clause 12 that, contrary to what was done previously, the amount of the annual grant is not now specifically mentioned. The reason for this change is that it is necessary in a contract like this, which is to run for ten years, to provide for variation of the grant in different circumstances. This means that any printed figure is liable to be out of date quite soon, and would, therefore, become misleading, and this has been the experience with the figure of £360,000 mentioned in Article 15 of the 1952 agreement. That figure included £60,000 in respect of the carriage of mails, which, as I have explained, is now being dealt with outside the subsidy. The comparable annual grant in 1952 was, therefore, only about £300,000, and in the last ten years it has varied between that figure and £260,000.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman is admitting, if that is the case, the Government's complete failure to hold prices


and costs, for it would be the same figure each year.

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member will realise that this figure is bound to vary each year, very often as a result of greater efficiency in operation.

Mr. Manuel: I wish I could.

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member will do so when I have reached a further stage in my speech.
Because of such variations, it seems more sensible not to print a figure at this stage. The annual estimated grant will continue to be published in my Department's annual estimates. For the first year, it is likely to be of the same order as the grant has been running under the present agreement, but the grant can be varied, up or down, to take account of changes in services, and that is provided for in Clause 6 (7).

Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman says, "More or less as it has been running at present". Does he mean in the last contract, or as it was in the last year?

Mr. Maclay: The figure is somewhere between what the grant was running at last year and that at which it was running at intervals during the whole period of the contract. The figure I have given is between £260,000 and £300,000, and until the Undertaking is through, and we have completed negotiations, we cannot specify what the figure will be.
I repeat, because this is part of the point which the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) put to me, that the grant can be varied up or down to take account of changes in services and changes in charges and of the financial results of the company's operations. An increase in the grant—and I will be quite frank about this—in the next few years seems unavoidable because of the high cost of ship replacement and operation.
Although no figure is printed in the Undertaking, Clause 12 of the agreement sets out the basis on which the grant is to be calculated. It will be an estimate, made at the beginning of the agreement, of the annual loss involved in maintaining the services, after allowing for depreciation of assets and for interest on the company's capital employed in

the business. This estimate is reached after a close examination of the company's performance in previous years and an assessment of its future prospects. As I said, negotiations are now in progress about what the grant will be.
I have said that the grant has to allow for interest on the capital which the company employs in its business. We have considered carefully what the appropriate rate of interest should be, and have come to the conclusion that the company's capital should be remunerated at the same rate as if it were made available to the Government as a ten-year loan. The rate, which is provided in Clause 17 (1), is accordingly 6⅝ per cent., which was the appropriate Government borrowing rate prevailing at the date on which the agreement was provisionally concluded with the company. This is the rate that the Government would have had to pay if they had had to borrow the capital needed to run the services themselves for ten years.
There will be a change in the fifth year. There is to be a general financial review, as explained in Clause 20, but special provision, outwith the general review, is also made in Clause 17 (2) for the interest rate. For the second five years, the company has agreed that it should follow the appropriate Government borrowing rate prevailing on 1st January, 1967, as determined by the Treasury. The capital employed on which the company will receive this return is now just over £1 million, having increased from £726,000 in 1952.
This increase is attributable, in the main, to the ploughing back of profits by reason of dividend restrictions in the 1952 agreement and to tax allowances in respect of new ships. It has been used, of course, to finance capital requirements. I envisage that the company will achieve less capital growth in future, because it is unlikely that it will earn comparable tax allowances. Any capital growth is most likely to come as a result of the continued dividend restriction in the present agreement.
Clause 18 provides that dividends will continue to be limited. The limit will be 6⅝ per cent. in the first five years, and thereafter it will follow the figure then determined by the Treasury for interest. Dividends are payable only on the company's issued capital. Since 1952, the


company's issued capital has remained at £500,000, but the company has now proposed to increase it to £800,000. It is competent for the company to do this, and it brings its issued capital more into line with the capital employed.

Mr. E. G. Willis: How does the company propose to increase its capital—by bonus shares?

Mr. Maclay: By capitalising some of the reserves. This means that under the new agreement the company will be allowed interest on about £1 million capital, although limited to paying dividends on £800,000.
The other main financial provision in the Undertaking is in Clause 16, which provides for the incentive arrangements. If in any year the company does well, and, after meeting the costs of operating the services, charging depreciation and meeting interest on capital, there still remains a balance of grant unspent, in other words, if the company has beaten the estimate, that sum, up to £30,000, is to be shared equally between the Government and the company. Any excess over £30,000 goes back to the Government. Similarly, if there is a deficiency, it will be shared equally by the parties up to £30,000 and any excess over that amount will be borne by the Government. This sharing arrangement is similar to that in the present agreement, but the range is now doubled, and will make the incentive to efficiency stronger and more effective.
Those are the main financial provisions, but I would now like to turn to the various controls over the company's operations. Control will be retained, as in the past, over the services provided—Clauses 5 and 6—but details of the services are not being printed in the agreement because the changes which have to be made in them from time to time mean that the printed list becomes out of date. Instead, the company will be required to maintain a list of approved services and to make it available for public inspection. The need to exercise control over the fixing of rates and fares is one of the most onerous and thankless tasks which Ministers have to undertake—I know quite a few others—and the Secretary of State is under constant pressure about

the burden of freight charges to the Highlands and Islands. Clearly, the company cannot be given freedom to fix charges at will. On the other hand, the public purse must be safeguarded.
Past agreements have given no guidance—to the public, the company, or even to Ministers—as to how Ministers should exercise their discretion in this matter. In the new agreement we have set up signposts in Clause 19 (1, d) guiding the Secretary of State as to the factors which he should take into account in considering changes. The first of these is the level of other transport charges. It is impossible to consider charges in the Highlands without taking into account what is happening in other transport services to the Highlands, or in other parts of the country.
The second factor is the financial results of the agreement. Obviously, the company's interests have to be taken into account, as have those of the taxpayer, which are sometimes forgotten in these matters. Frankly, I would like, and the company would like, I am sure, to work towards the position where the subsidy becomes unnecessary and can be abolished, so far as that is compatible with our responsibilities for the Highlands. For, and this is the third consideration, the Secretary of State, has to take into account the effect of charges on the economy of the area. The new agreement also specifically provides in Clause 19 (2) that where, for the reasons I have given, the Secretary of State decides that it would be unjustifiable to agree to an application by the company to alter charges, he will be able to alter the grant instead.
There are two other points which should be mentioned. The first is the future provision of ships. As hon. Members are aware, the company, looking into the future, has made proposals for the introduction of new vehicle ferry services to the Western Isles. It is confident that these services will encourage a new kind of traffic which will be of benefit to the Islands. Vehicle ferry services will be a better investment from everybody's point of view.
The company's proposals are still under consideration, but I hope to announce a decision soon. If the proposals are approved, three new vessels will have to be built. As the House is


aware, the Act of 1960 gave power for the Secretary of State to build and charter ships, and this is what will be done in this case. It seems to the Government that this is a much sounder method of providing for the company's main capital needs than by leaving it to finance its own requirements. The ships will be chartered to the company under separate commercial charter parties. The company will be charged a commercial charter fee, but the annual grant under this agreement will be adjusted as necessary to meet that fee. The reason for proceeding in this way—charging a full commercial rate and altering the grant to cover it—is, of course, to show the real extent of the charge on the public purse. There will be no hidden subsidy.
The second matter I want to stress is that the Government are concerned that the services should be operated with the utmost efficiency. I am sure that there will be general agreement on all sides that the company's masters and crews and its road vehicle staff deserve high praise for the way in which the services are maintained, often in very difficult conditions.
During the past ten years the company has disposed of many aged vessels with honourable names. The "Clydesdale", the "Hebrides" the "Lochinvar" the "Loch Ness" and the "St. Columba" have all gone, to the regret of many of us who have known them for many years—and that is quite a tribute to the age of some of the ships. New ships, such as the "Claymore" and the "Loch Ard", have joined the fleet. The company has also expanded its fleet of road vehicles. Bigger and faster ships, more and better road vehicles, and successful reorganisations of services to make the best use of them have all made a contribution to greater efficiency. I can assure the House that this effort will be continued.
Both the Government and the company have been fortunate in recent years in having the services of Sir William Robieson as Government director. He has given a great deal of time and energy to the company's affairs and, if the House approves this Motion tonight, I propose to reappoint him for a further three years. I propose also to appoint Mr. Frank Robertson of the Gem Line to serve for a period of four years. His

sound experience of shipping will, I am sure, make him an invaluable member of the company's board.

Mr. Manuel: The Secretary of State has spoken of appointments to the board. He has power to nominate. Is he saying that that power to nominate is the same as appointing and that a nomination will not be turned down by the other directors?

Mr. Maclay: I understand that it is the same thing. It is a nice point which has not occurred to me, but I think that it is the same thing.
I turn now to the two Orkney agreements. These agreements represent the solution, so far as organisation and finance go, to the problem of the shipping services between Kirkwall and the North Isles of Orkney. It has been a complex problem to which there was no quick and easy solution. I need not detain the House too long by going into the details of the history of this problem. It arose in the first place from the inability of the company which provides these services to replace its two aged vessels.
It was clear that substantial Government assistance was necessary, and, as hon. Members know, the Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Act was introduced and passed last year. Neither the Orkney Steam Navigation Company nor the North of Scotland Company was prepared, however, to continue or to assume responsibility for these services, even with Government assistance under the Act of 1960.
After consideration of various possibilities, in all of which I had the advice of Sir Douglas Thomson of the Ben Line, to whom I am much indebted for help in these matters, arrangements were made by Colonel Scarth, the Convener of Orkney County Council, for a new company to be sat up, and I am extremely grateful for the support which this decision received in Orkney. The assistance to be given to this new company is governed by the agreement now before the House.
The agreement with the new company is broadly on the same lines as the MacBrayne agreement, though with the distinction that it is simpler because there is no private capital to be remunerated. It may be asked why we


have not followed the MacBrayne pattern in Orkney, or vice versa. The answer is that we have followed the patterns that best fitted rather different situations. Generally, we would like to see all these services in the hands of experienced companies. On the West Coast we had an experienced company in being, but no existing company was available and willing to operate the Orkney services, and it proved necessary to set up a new company.
Under Clause 11, the company will receive an annual grant to meet its operating losses. To enable it to acquire the capital assets of the present company and to meet other capital requirements and also to provide working capital, it will be able to obtain a loan from the Government—that is under Clause 14 (1). Hon. Members will, however, note that under Clause 14 (2) the company itself will be able to raise loans from the public, up to a limit of £50,000, with Government support and subject to Government approval.
This provision has been introduced because it is desirable to foster local interest in the company and enable it to receive local support; and clearly, if successful, this could enable it to repay the loan from the Government. The company will operate only approved services and the Secretary of State will exercise the same control over rates and fares as in the case of MacBrayne.
We have been extremely fortunate in securing the services of Sir Douglas Thomson and Colonel Scarth as the Government-appointed directors and respectively chairman and vice-chairman of the company. They are supported by a strong local board, and I am confident that under their guidance the company will be able to arrange improved services from the islands. I should add briefly that the first new ship to be chartered to the company is now building in the yard of Messrs. Hall, Russell and Company of Aberdeen. The keel has been laid and the ship is expected to be in service in the early summer of next year. The question of a second ship is still under consideration.
The third agreement—that with the present company, the Orkney Steam Navigation Company Ltd.—deals with the transitional arrangements which have

had to be put in hand while the new company was being set up. It was inevitable that the steps towards the solution of these Orkney problems were protracted. During this time it was necessary to ensure that the services were maintained. The present company was faced with heavy costs for keeping its ships in service and it also faced the liability of trading losses.
Faced with this situation it was necessary to offer assistance to the company to keep the services in being and, as the agreement shows, this was done by offering a grant towards the repair costs of one of the company's ships and towards the company's trading losses, if any, in 1961. In return for this assistance, the company undertakes, subject to the approval of shareholders, to sell to the new company for the sum of £26,500 those of its assets which will be needed to carry on the services.
The draft before the House, which embodies these provisions, has, of course, been formally agreed by the board of the company, but is still to be considered by shareholders at a general meeting to be held on 26th December. It is intended that the services and assets should be transferred to the new company at the end of the year, and it is appropriate to put on record the co-operation and public spirit shown by the present company in maintaining the services and in the negotiations that took place.
I have tried as briefly and as clearly as I can to explain what is not a simple subject on three different agreements, and I hope that the House will feel that I have given enough information to enable hon. Members to form a final decision, and to approve these Motions.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman has given no information about the rate of the annual grant in relation to the winding-up company or the company that is to take over in relation to the Orkneys.

Mr. Maclay: I am not entirely certain of the point that the hon. Member is on.

Mr. Ross: The trading loss.

Mr. Maclay: I am not sure whether this will reach £10,000. It is a precaution to come to the House with that


Motion, because it is conceivable that the figure might reach £10,000. It is below that amount at the moment, according to my advice, but it is just possible that it might reach £10,000, so that I am bound to come to the House in case it does reach that figure.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: At the outset it must be understood that these Undertakings cannot be amended. They have been agreed, as I understand it, at least as far as the two relating to the Orkneys are concerned, with the existing shipping company, the Orkney Steam Navigation Company Ltd., and with the new company, the Orkney Islands Shipping Company Ltd. Further, it will be noticed that while there is a substantial subsidy still to be paid to Messrs. MacBrayne for their services between the mainland of Scotland and the Outer Islands, there is no subsidy on the trunk route between the mainland of Scotland and Orkney and Shetland. The assistance offered under these Undertakings applies solely to the routes from Kirkwall out to the North Isles.
It would be wrong of me to look a gift horse too closely in the mouth. We have got to have these services. We are faced with accepting or rejecting these agreements, and I need hardly say that, as far as I am concerned, they must be accepted. But I have one or two comments to make upon them.
I do not wonder that the Secretary of State was rather reluctant to look into the history of the matter. It has a very long history and a great deal of trouble could have been saved had the Government been prepared to act rather sooner.

Mr. Willis: Shilly-shallying again.

Mr. Grimond: I notice that in the agreements there is no emphasis on improving the services or reducing the freight charges. This, I think, is a vital point. If the Secretary of State is serious about reducing the amount which the taxpayers will have to pay, it must come from a general increase in freight and passengers carried between the islands. This means tackling the economy as a whole, and certainly improving the services.
I should also like to express my thanks to the board of the existing company,

to the new board and to those who have assisted in getting some sort of a scheme agreed. The Secretary of State will be aware that there has been some anxiety in the North Isles of Orkney about the representation from them. I hope he will keep this in mind. The board as constituted has certain shipping experts, but it also, rightly, has certain people who are there primarily because they are going to use the services. Some islands feel that they have been left out of this process, and, while we cannot do much about that tonight, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will keep it in mind.
There is no mention of the draft of possible air services. Most people consider that ultimately the air may well be the most efficient way of carrying some of the passengers and some of the lighter freight. There is no mention of landing craft or hovercraft, although here again it has been suggested in one island that a landing craft would be the ideal vehicle. In general, I am afraid there is no effort to raise the level of the transport in the area.
I want to make a brief remark about the Undertaking between the Secretary of State and the Orkney Steam Navigation Company Ltd. I want to be clear about what is covered by the phrase "trading loss". The Secretary of State remarked on the very considerable expense that the company was put to over the survey and necessary repair to one of the vessels, and the Government are bearing £8,061 15s. of that expense. That is not taken into account in ascertaining the profit or loss. But does that mean that other expenses for surveying other vessels are to be taken into account? I should like to be assured that the financial provisions of the agreement are agreed with the company.
I turn to the other agreement, the Undertaking between the Secretary of State and the Orkney Islands Shipping Company Ltd., which will largely determine the services for the next five years. In Clause 5 in Part II it will be seen that, as I say, apparently the company is to be restricted to sea transport services. Personally, I think that is a pity. The Secretary of State informs me that he had taken the trouble to see that under its incorporation it is entitled to run air services and, as I say, I feel they might be very useful.
I also wish to draw attention to the fact that the Secretary of State is going to exercise very strict control. I feel that we should have rather more explanation of how the Government intend to exercise this control.
In Clause 6 hon. Members will see:
…if the Company proposes to introduce any additional service, or to alter or discontinue any of the Approved Services or part thereof,
the company must
give written notice of such proposals to the Secretary of State, and such proposal shall not be put into effect by the Company without the prior consent in writing of the Secretary of State.
This provision is amended lower down in paragraph (3), where it is stated:
The Company may, at its discretion, operate any occasional excursion or service or any experimental or temporary service without giving prior notice…
As I read it, that means that if the company wishes to undertake direct shipment from ports in Scotland to the North Isles of Orkney, it would require the express approval of the Secretary of State for every such service. Again, this might be a method of reducing substantially transport costs, particularly on bulk commodities. It is in fact used to some extent now and it may well be that the company would want to increase it. Is it really intended that for that type of service the company would have to have the approval of the Secretary of State? If so, can we be assured that it will get an answer to its request from the Scottish Office reasonably quickly?
I notice that under the financial provisions in Part III only losses are contemplated. At present, this may be unavoidably true, but I hope that we shall not embark on this new scheme of services to the North Isles in a mood of unrelieved pessimism. It should form part of a general policy by the Government to raise the trade of the islands. If that is done, and if new forms of communication are explored, I do not think that we should resign ourselves to a loss for ever, although I quite agree with the Secretary of State that at the moment there is no doubt that some, or a large part of it, will have to be met by subsidy.
It was suggested that, as well as the directors of the company, some local

people should be asked to take shares in the company. Equity shares in this company are not very attractive because it is forbidden to pay dividends. Although the Secretary of State touched on a question of debentures, he did not in fact say anything about this matter. I should be grateful if, when he replies to the debate, the Under-Secretary would say whether it will be possible for people who use the services to take an active part in running the company. Will they be allowed even to take up a few nominal shares, or is it intended that there will be no equity shareholders whatever?
The debenture shareholders can, of course, have no direct say in or responsibility for the services. If the Government have come to the conclusion, and if it is the view of the company as well, that it is not possible to have equity shareholders and that it is unrealistic to expect dividends—I take it that that is the conclusion at which they have arrived—they should consider how the people of the North Isles can be associated with the company. I regard this as a matter of some importance. Perhaps they are able to suggest some other method by which they might be associated.
Under Clauses 13 and 14, the Secretary of State will exercise a very strict control over the company's financial arrangements. I make no complaint about the Government, when putting up a large sum of public money, taking very considerable control, but I hope that this control will be exercised in a businesslike way and that decisions which have to be made will be made with reasonable speed. The Secretary of State cannot object to my saying that, because he knows full well that up to now the reverse has been the case.
Finally, all this raises a doubt in my mind as to whether the Scottish Office is set up to exercise this type of control at all. We are now embarking on a new form of nationalisation.

Mr. Willis: Hear, hear.

Mr. Grimond: There is no question of the Government keeping out of the day-to-day running of the company.

Mr. Ross: It has full Liberal support this time.

Mr. Grimond: As I say, I am bound to accept the agreement or have no services at all. I have made it clear that I shall not oppose the agreement. There is no doubt that this is a new form of nationalisation in the sense—and it is an important sense—that the Government are taking very much greater powers than they have ever done before. They are not going to say, "We keep out of the day-to-day running of the business", or put people in charge and leave it largely to them. They are saying, "You cannot put on extra services or raise extra money without our written authority". It may well be that, after all the exploration that they have done, this is inevitable, but I should like an assurance that the Scottish Office, at its end of the business, so to speak, will operate this in a thoroughly businesslike manner and that we shall not be held up for decisions at every turn.
The first decision about which we want further information fairly quickly concerns the provision of boats. The Secretary of State told us—and I was very glad to hear that—that one boat is being built now. I hope that, not only will it be a boat suitable in the seamanlike sense for the islands, bearing in mind the difficulties over piers—I always stress the matter of piers because they are vital to these services—but that it will not be too overladen with overheads—for instance, through overstaffing. Some extra staff may be necessary in summer, but in winter it imposes a burden of overheads which could be avoided.
What about a second boat? Is the Under-Secretary of State able to tell us anything about that? The new company will take over the "Thorfinn" and the "Sigurd". These are coal-burning boats, very expensive to run and very expensive to survey and repair. They are not as old as the Secretary of State, whose age apparently is the age of the Western Isles boats. I was slightly horrified to hear this—unless he is very much younger than I am led to suppose.

Mr. Maclay: I must make it clear that some of the names have been with me all my life, not the ships.

Mr. Grimond: I had visions of the right hon. Gentleman being taken, as a babe in arms, to the Western Isles on

some of these boats. Our boats are older than they should be, and we shall need a second boat. Is it intended to charter an existing ship until the Government are prepared to lay down a new one? There will be few better moments for laying down a second ship than now, when the shipyards are very anxious to get orders. I have made these points about the shipping services often before, but, if the Under Secretary of State would say a word or two about the standard of service which the Government intend the company to provide, that would be reassuring to my constituents.
I must warn the Secretary of State, as he full well realises, that every change in the North Isles services in Orkney is now a suitable subject for Parliamentary Question. There can be no doubt that there is direct Ministerial responsibility about every aspect of this company. I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not have a great deal of spare time and I suspect that this will add to his innumerable burdens. The Scottish Office is one of the most overladen Departments in the Government. I am concerned whether it will be able for very much longer to execute all its different duties.
I hope that the Secretary of State will regard this, not as the end of something that is finished, but the beginning of a new attempt to provide better and cheaper services—

Mr. Willis: More nationalisation.

Mr. Grimond: —from the Outer Isles to the mainland of Orkney.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I doubt, Mr. Speaker, whether I left you with any great choice in the matter of calling the next speaker since no hon. Gentleman opposite rose to speak on this occasion. No hon. Member opposite has shown very great interest about what happens to the transport services in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. I have no doubt that that will be noted. It has, in fact, already been noted. If the Secretary of State considers the voting figures for the last election, when the Government presented their election programme and policy to the Highlands and Islands, I think that he will agree with me that


by far the majority of votes cast were not for Government supporters.
I am obliged to the Secretary of State for Scotland—as I am sure all hon. Members are—for bringing forward this agreement for discussion at a much earlier hour than usual. I think that perhaps what happened on the last occasion on which we debated a fairly important Highland Measure—the Crofters Bill—may have had something to do with this. I hope that the habit of starting a discussion on Scottish matters at eleven o'clock and ending at one or two o'clock in the morning has gone for ever.
I am sure that all hon. Members will join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the excellent work of the masters and crews of David MacBrayne Ltd. in the Highlands and Islands services, and also the Orkneys and Shetland services. Any criticisms that we have to make of the services, or those administering them, or the Government, do not apply to the people on shore and at sea who have to carry on very often with out-of-date and ancient vessels, inadequate equipment, poor landing piers and inadequate shelter. We thank the masters and crews and other workers for the way in which they have carried out their work from year to year.
I welcome, too, the extension to the Orkneys and Shetland service of the aid now familiar to us in the Western Isles. I do not think that anybody would criticise this gesture. I only hope that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) will have less cause for complaint than I have had from time to time over the years about the way in which such a service has operated in the Western Isles.
We also welcome the reappointment of Sir William Robieson. He has given excellent service. He is well liked and respected, and in the years that I have known him he has shown a genuine interest in the welfare of the Highland people. I am less familiar with the second appointee. We can only wish him well and hope that that he will not be overwhelmed with his duties and not subjected too overwhelmingly to the influence of the MacBrayne shareholders when representing the public interest

and the particular interests of the people of the Highlands and Islands.
In spite of the normal differences in political theories, we on this side of the House welcome the application of these powers which the right hon. Gentleman took under the 1960 Act to build and to own ships. He is familiar with that function in his private capacity, but now it is interesting to see him in this dual capacity of both public and private shipbuilder and shipowner. The right hon. Gentleman has gone further towards public control on sea—or perhaps I should say at sea—than the Labour Government did at the height of their "passion for nationalisation" as he used to call it at one time. For the rest, what he proposes follows very much the old familiar pattern, apart from the inclusion of the Orkneys and Shetland.
It was interesting and diverting today to find the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, in his rôle of purely localised Socialist complimenting the National Liberal who is now no doubt a National Socialist as well, upon the measures he has taken to extend a measure of Socialism across the sea to the North-East and North-West, and to provide the benefits which only public ownership, public control, and public enterprise, can bring to those areas, where private industry has, unhappily, tried for only too long and lamentably failed.
I do not think that anybody will dispute that this demonstrates once again the need in the North of Scotland for applying measures of this kind by direct Government action if we are to sustain the economic and social life of those areas. This is one area in which the lesson has been learnt even by a Tory Government. I am only sorry that in other directions the same Government have gone in for a policy of dismantling public transport services, which can do only harm to that area.
I am talking about the dismantling of British Road Services, which were doing nothing but good for the Highlands and Islands. I hope that at this stage the Government will take the greatest care and the most effective measures to ensure that railway closures are not carried on in the Highlands and Islands in such a way as further to damage and dismantle the transport system in that area, because,


more than is the case anywhere else, it depends on good communications, and upon transport by road, by rail, by sea and by air.
I am sorry that the policy of State assistance is not being more generously applied in one other direction, among the consumers of these island transport services, and that the consideration which has been shown to the shareholders of the steamship companies is not being shown to the fishermen who are buying their vessels and being charged between 6½ per cent. and 7 per cent. interest. This is almost a study in contrast between the treatment, on the one hand, of shareholders, and, on the other, of small men trying to make a go of it in difficult circumstances and showing great enterprise indeed.
Not only does this company have a subsidy but it has a mail contract. Not only has it a subsidy with that contract, but it is guaranteed against loss. Not only is it guaranteed against loss, but it is guaranteed a reasonable profit on increased capital. If anything goes amiss in the service, as the company has a profitable monopoly in the area and has nothing to fear by way of competition, it cannot complain of the sharpest possible public criticism, and it is my view that, now that we have ministerial responsibility, it should be brought under frequent public accountability in this House.
We can only say "Aye" or "No" to these proposals. We cannot amend them. There are many things we would like to add, and one or two things we would like to subtract, and we stand dismayed that the Secretary of State has not thought of including at least some of the things which I am sure must have passed through his mind from time to time, or at least been brought to his attention in correspondence from those who represent the Highlands and Islands.
In the meantime, we are put in the invidious position of having to go back to our constituents and say, "We let it go through. We did not vote against it or amend it" and then we have the difficult job of explaining why the House of Commons has no power to amend an agreement which comes before it and which demands the annual outlay of a large sum of public money. It takes much more time to explain that away than it will take the Secretary of State

to get this agreement through. Therefore, I want to make it clear that we have no power to amend. If we had, we should exercise all our ingenuity to try to do it.
Because we cannot amend, and obviously cannot reject, this agreement—if we did we would get nothing at all. I regret all the more that the opportunities for a full review of this service in the Highlands and Islands occur so rarely. It may be that from now on we shall have a regular review of these services, apart from what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to, the questioning and examination of the Minister at Question Time when he comes up for his six-weekly interrogation and opportunity to explain the problems we set him. I hope that we will have more full, formal opportunities of discussing the services and their operation. During the last Session of Parliament we had the Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Bill, and we now have this debate. But that sort of thing does not happen every Session, or in every two consecutive Sessions. It is, therefore, extremely important that we should find some means of having a full, formal debate on these services more frequently in future.
Some of the local authorities in the Highland counties of which my constituency is a part have been suggesting that the Government should not give David MacBrayne Limited a ten-year run. Some suggest that there should be an annual contract only. While I respect their views, and have had reason to share their fears and doubts about a full ten-year run, that would create difficulties of its own, because it would destroy continuity in planning, make the shipbuilding plans difficult and, generally speaking, destroy the confidence of any company which wished to forge ahead and plan work over several years.
Nevertheless, it is a measure of the lack of full confidence among local authorities, speaking on behalf of the public in those areas, that they are very loath to see the company getting a ten-year run without annual accountability. Therefore, we ought to have the debates which I have suggested at least annually.
There is no reason why David MacBrayne and the new companies should not be under survey as frequently


as the British Transport Commission is in its own Annual Report. After all, they are very closely linked. For example, every time rail freights and fares are increased, the freight rates and passenger fares of David MacBrayne go up proportionately, and presumably the same thing will happen in the North-East.
I know that the investment of British Railways in David MacBrayne does not give them a controlling interest, but for many years British Railways have had substantially half the investment capital in the company. At the same time, the company is run independently as a shipping company, and there is no real control of the operation of the company in respect of its shipping mangement.

Sir John Barlow: If British Railways owns half the capital, can the hon. Gentleman say who owns the other half?

Mr. MacMillan: Coastlines has sub-substantially half the capital, just a little more than British Railways have—the old L.M.S. interest taken over by British Railways. This question arose at the time of the transport nationalisation Measure after the war, and it was only then that I and most of us discovered that it was not possible to take over David MacBrayne under the nationalisation provisions, because the railway interest did not give the railways a controlling interest in the shipping company. That is a matter of regret to us, even if it is a matter of joy to the hon. Baronet the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow).
I emphasise that it seems to me—I hope the Secretary of State will try to devise some method of doing this—that we should have a full, formal annual review of the operation of these companies' services.
It might be worth while having a joint users' consultative committee in association with the two projects—David MacBrayne Limited and the North Eastern services, and from time to time having before us a fairly full report from the Government directors, possibly with the comments of the shipping board of David MacBrayne and the other companies and the comments of the joint

consultative users' committee. There is a precedent for the suggestion which I am now making. I feel that the stage has been reached when it would be useful to have something of that kind.
I regret I am sure that hon. Members of all parties also do; at least, hon. Members from the Highlands—that we have not before us tonight a scheme to establish a fully integrated public service of sea, road, rail and, indeed, air transport. All these things were discussed when we were debating the Highland and Islands Shipping Services Bill in Committee, the Measure which made the present scheme possible and authorised the Secretary of State to bring forward this agreement and these proposals.
We have reached the stage in this area when the State is heavily subsidising regional sea transport. Tonight, we are once again extending the subsidising of sea transport from the North-West to the North-East. British European Airways is also heavily subsidised, and some road services—including bus services—associated with the shipping services are also subsidised. It may be said that this is the time to call a halt. My view is, however, that, on the contrary, we are not doing enough and that a great part of what is being done is being wasted or inefficiently or insufficiently used because we have not gone further in providing, for example, inter-island ferries and, to some extent, rural transport, and rural bus services in particular.
Otherwise, we must face the fact that soaring transport costs are gradually emptying the region. When one looks at the depopulation figures, especially those for some of the outer Western islands and some of the Orkney northern isles, and certainly those for some of the villages of north-west Ross-shire and Sutherland, I do not think anybody can be left in doubt that the cost of communications factor is contributing very much to the depopulation of those areas.
We are often charged with enjoying, and demanding more enjoyment of, what are regarded as social services, which is a polite way of saying that we are at the receiving end of considerable amounts of Treasury charity. If that be true, I should like to think that that was confined to the Highlands and


Islands, but there are costly and hopelessly uneconomic railway services throughout Great Britain, and this charge about the railways having to carry uneconomic services in the Highlands and Islands especially is obviously not true exclusively of the Highlands and Islands. It is quite unfair to say that the Highlands and Islands constitute the area which gives the Transport Commission its greatest loss.
Again on the subject of sea transport, it has become abundantly clear that David MacBrayne will not be lonely very much longer in having to go along and hold out its hat for Treasury assistance on the high seas. Indeed, the proud giant of the Atlantic, the Cunard Company, does not hesitate to come forward with its hat and both hands held out ready for Government subventions and support, though even choosing its own time and its own way for enjoying this public assistance.
Whichever way we look, we find that almost every concern connected with shipping and shipbuilding is in the same position. The very steel for the Secretary of State's new ships under these measures—the steel from Colvilles and the rest—enjoys special transport rates and special coal prices from the Transport Commission and the National Coal Board respectively and millions of pounds of direct and indirect public assistance from the Treasury and public investment. Therefore, public assistance, which is so often regarded as being a special right and a special claim of the Highlands and Islands, is enjoyed by the Highlands and Islands in common with some of the wealthiest and most powerful interests in the country and with other regions far more fortunately placed in respect of geography and distance than the Highlands and Islands.
The Toothill Committee has just reported. We have carefully studied its recommendations and comments. One thing that dismays us—it is only one among a number of such things—is that throughout the Report there is hardly a reference of any kind to the Highlands and Islands. It is extraordinary that at a time when several regional inquiries are being made, when complaints are rolling in and when the Secretary of State has to bring forward special legislation and new Measures of all kinds for

the North and the Isles we find a committee concerned with the whole of Scotland reporting only, broadly speaking, on the industrial belt of Scotland. The Report contains nothing about Highland transport and sea services and totally ignores this northern part of Scotland. Surely the Report should have paid attention to areas for which the Government have had to legislate, particularly in the Local Employment Act and in other Measures.
It has been a matter of dismay because we looked forward to the Report with new hope and expectation. But these have all been sadly dashed. I am sorry that that has been the case and that the Report contains not a word about the transport needs of the general public in the North and not a word—worth mentioning, anyway—about Scotland's sea transport and Highland development. In that respect, the Report is not helpful to the Secretary of State. Indeed, on air services, it seems only to advocate that to the privilege of travelling free by air on business accounts, businessmen be given subsidised priority flying B.E.A.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I do not think that he is in order in exploring the Toothill Report on these three draft Undertakings.

Mr. MacMillan: I will not quarrel with your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but surely I have the right to explore the Report and see whether reference is made to the Highlands and Islands sea and other transport services and to make critical comment of there being no such reference.
I was saying that the Report is not helpful to the Secretary of State, and that is as far as I am concerned with the Report now. It remains on record that it has shown absolutely no interest in the Highlands and Islands, offers no help and contains no suggestions which might have been embodied in proposals for improving sea transport and associated road and rail transport in the Highlands and Islands.
To those critics who say that the Highlands and Islands, and sometimes Scotland generally, expect from the Treasury more than they have the right to expect,


that is by no means an attitude—born of necessity—confined to the Highlands and Islands. The Secretary of State is perfectly justified and is supported by all of us in the demands he is making on the Treasury now to extend the assistance we in the north-west Highlands and Islands have enjoyed to the north-eastern islands of Scotland.
It is no accident or coincidence that in the area of the Western Isles and, at times, in parts of Shetland and the North-West, unemployment, depopulation, transport charges and the cost of living are all at one and the same time by far the highest in the British Isles. Many people believe that transport and freight costs represent the single most important item that is increasing the already high cost of living and has indirectly caused the high unemployment and depopulation levels in the area.
One of the difficulties of any company operating in the outer islands, especially in areas where it must frequently break cargoes and make many local calls, is that it has far too little overall cargo and traffic, and particularly when it is mainly only seasonal traffic. The company, therefore, insists on raising its freight rates to make up for the lack of cargo. When that is done then, naturally, the tendency is for traffic to shy away from the higher freight rate. One of the effects of this spiral—of traffic and freight rates chasing each other— is that the cost of living is forced up. The result is that, in the smaller islands and remoter areas, with multiple handling, depopulation is at its worst and the cost of living at its highest.
My hon. Friends and I have many times offered the Secretary of State many ideas concerning the application of the Local Employment Act and other Measures to the Western Isles and to the Highlands and Islands generally, particularly to the outlying areas. We have suggested to the Secretary of State, to his colleagues in the Board of Trade and to the Government generally that they should introduce Measures for the equalisation of costs to induce industrialists to come to these areas, to produce there and thus to create employment and halt depopulation.
We have suggested various measures, from the assisting of private enterprise

to initiating direct State enterprise. Among our suggestions and incentives has been that of transport concessions. In this direction we have suggested various ideas from direct subsidy to zoned transport equalisation and whenever an idea of that kind has been suggested one Government after another have turned us down. So we are left still with the difficulties of outlying places facing increasingly high transport costs—and all without any adequate measures being taken to try to cushion them against the impact of this endless spiral in transport costs.
The measures being taken now—the subsidy for McBrayne's, which is supposed to keep costs down and which, to some extent, does control transport costs, freight charges and transport fares—have proved, not utterly valueless but not nearly effective enough to equalise transport costs in these areas with what are regarded as reasonable transport costs in other parts of the country.
The people in these areas are not asking for special rates and concessions more than are necessary to equalise them with other areas. This is all that is being asked and from time to time that is all I have ever heard made as a request to Governments from local authorities' spokesmen and hon. Members who represent the Highland and Islands. I am glad that the Secretary of State did not tonight repeat what his predecessor said when introducing the 1952 agreement. I speak of the late Sir Gurney Braithwaite and of—in 1952—an occasion when he said that he found himself less afraid to face Scottish hon. Members because, he said, he came "laden with gold". I remember his words well. The occasion was not quite at this time of the year. Perhaps his words would have been more appropriate had they come nearer to Christmas, but I have yet to see the present or any other Secretary of State, under the eye of the Treasury, distributing, almost irresponsibly, largesse to the Highland and Islands.
The Secretary of State's attitude tonight was different from that of his English colleagues who sit on the Government Front Bench and imagine that they are dispensing some special charity to the places which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Captain Litchfield) recently called, "The bleak winter fastnesses of the Highlands and


Islands". Considering past Ministers, I am grateful that the present Secretary of State at least understands the problems, whatever may be said about the right hon. Gentleman's effectiveness in dealing with them.
Having paid the right hon. Gentleman that compliment I cannot honestly say that Santa Claus's gifts rest very convincingly in the black bags under the Treasury-haunted eyes of the Scottish Ministers. The measures now before the House will not bring the Highlands and Islands' transport rates and the consequent cost of living and problems associated with them down to anything like the ordinary average level for the rest of the country. Knowing that, surely it must be on his conscience that he has not taken sufficient, efficient and adequate measures to deal with the problem which, I admit, is intractable in many ways, but about which we have had a hundred years' representation and discussion. It is high time that more effective measures were taken to solve it.
I shall not talk about the north-eastern Isles, which have been discussed by the hon. Member representing them, but, if the Hebrides were attached to the coast and sticking out in one piece in the Atlantic for 120 miles, probably they would have a trunk road from one end to another. It would be maintained 100 per cent. by the Treasury, costing many millions of pounds. That is not a new argument, but it still remains a fact that only because these areas have the open sea of the Minch as their "trunk road" everyone lifts his eyebrows as soon as the Government spend a halfpenny on keeping this "trunk road" open to traffic to and from the islands.
The Minch is our "trunk road" and it is highly desirable and vital that the cost of maintaining it should be met. The cost of maintaining a stone and tar-macadam road would be far greater than maintenance of the MacBrayne and other sea services under subsidy. As soon as we mention subsidy for the Highland areas people think that it is something in addition to and not instead of money for road access. We are not here giving something in addition to, but in place of a road.
There are one or two points I wish to address to the Under-Secretary, who recently, perhaps, has been a little more

familiar with the area I represent than is the Secretary of State. I wish to ask him what is to happen under the new MacBrayne proposals and services in respect of South Uist. The Secretary of State has mentioned proposals for the new ferry service from North Uist and Harris to Skye and the mainland, but the people of South Uist are extremely anxious. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will say a word or two about the maintenance of the direct link between Loch Boisdale and the mainland. At a minimum two services directly to the mainland weekly is needed and this applies particularly to the winter season.
The picture otherwise is that, under the arrangement we are providing, the people of South Uist will have to go from Lochboisdale through South Uist, through Benbecula and then to Loch Maddy. Then they will have to cross over to Skye; then over Skye, possibly in snow and ice in winter weather and get aboard a ferry boat again. Then they will have to go all the way down the coast southwards—when they might have gone directly across from Loch Boisdale to the mainland ports. For the people of South Uist that is not particularly attractive. Nor will it be attractive, especially in bad weather, for anyone, including the tourists whom we want to come there and use these services.
I should like the Under-Secretary to reassure the South Uist people that the Government will keep open the direct MacBrayne link across to the mainland ports. Has the Minister anything in mind about the Stornoway-Ullapool Ferry? Is that to be associated with MacBraynes, or is it to be in competition with MacBraynes, if one may be permitted to use such an expression? It has been mooted a number of times in the local authority meetings and local private enterprise people have discussed this question. The question is whether they can finance it without the assistance of a subsidy. Can we have some information?
Will the Minister also tell us if he has accepted for the purpose of all these discussions and these and other problems the rather new principle in that area of putting what are directly competitive services in competition with each other,


each enjoying Treasury subsidy? We want to know more about that because so much doubt is cast on these ferry proposals and even on the future of the MacBrayne and other ferry services generally.
The Under-Secretary may cast his mind back to a year last summer when I asked him some questions about piers in Harris; and I may bring the reply to his mind if he will remember having coffee with me in the manse in the Island of Scalpay. A year later the local minister told us that he was still awaiting a reply about the local ferry service we discussed that day. What is to happen about that project? No doubt the new Under-Secretary will be invited again some year to coffee and will be shown the approved ferry site which he more or less approved last summer. Could we have an answer on that? We have waited for a long time and it is time that a move was made. It is good to know that at least, the Secretary of State is talking about it.

Mr. Maclay: We are going to start some time.

Mr. MacMillan: That is very nice, but the right hon. Gentleman has the responsibility of pressing the Government and the Treasury to take urgent action, if he cannot take it directly himself.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say something more definite about it so that we know exactly where we stand in relation to MacBrayne's new services, where the boats are to ply, where they are to tie up and how they are to work in relation to other services? On none of these things has he given an explanation. These are questions which local people are asking. They have a right to ask them, and they have a right to an answer.
The Secretary of State owns another island in the Hebrides, Vatersay, near Castle Bay. I see and can understand him shuddering at the thought of owning problem islands; but possibly that is a mutual reaction which the islanders are more justified in expressing than he is. They are living on an island dependent on sea transport to Castle Bay and the mainland. There is no regular timetable ferry. They are dependent on casual lifts by fishing boats at all times. The time has come when people, if they are

to remain in those areas, should not be dependent on casual lifts in little fishing boats which happen to be passing to and fro. Something must be done about this if we are to attract tourists to the area and create a workable local transport service.
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us something about what is to happen to the Island of Berneray? To solve their problem they want to build a bridge to North Uist. The Secretary of State could also consider the problem of local vehicle ferry arrangements. I do not know what it will cost to get a bridge built to North Uist, which would give direct access to Harris, but neither does the Secretary of State know that. Simply to say "No" in the absence of knowledge is a little unfair. Therefore, he should consider the proposal of the local people to build a bridge which should be no more difficult than the building of other bridges which have been constructed.
These are problems which the people living in these islands have to face. They are local questions, but these are vital local services. To take one point of view, this is a service provided in order to allow and assist the merchants of Glasgow to send goods to the Western Isles and for tourists to visit the Isles and for the shareholders of MacBraynes to enjoy a guaranteed profit. But I hope that the House will also view it the other way. It should be primarily a service which the Government wish to make efficient and adequate for the purpose of sustaining the economic and social life of the Western Isles people at a reasonable level.
I am asking that the Government should make these services adequate, so that the people may have a sense of full participation in the benefits of citizenship of our country and feel that they are treated in the same way as others when they pay the same Income Tax, rates, and other outgoings, that people pay at the same levels throughout the country. If we put them under every citizen obligation and duty, they have every right to enjoy every economic and social benefit at the same level as the average citizen.
That is all we are asking. We are asking for the equalisation of standards and the equalisation of services so that


they may enjoy the same economic standards as the rest of the country. That is not asking for any form of charity, but that they should be given the same treatment as citizens everywhere else, who-have long taken it for granted. To the extent that the Secretary of State can make a more adequate contribution than his predecessors have made, his work will be appreciated—as in many respects, I must say in fairness to him. it is already appreciated in certain connections. I ask him, once again, to try to bring the services, particularly on the sea and the associated services by road—the bus services about which we have spoken tonight—up to the average normal standards in the countryside in the rest of the country.
Will he look at the Report of the joint inquiry held by the Scottish Tourist Board and the Highlands and Islands Panel and the recommendations about the need to sustain bus services, especially in the remoter areas because some of them are breaking down and passing out of existence? People are being thrown back in respect of transport, into the Middle Ages in certain areas. Unless they can thumb lifts from the driver of a passing van or a car they cannot have local transport. They are being deprived of bus services because the routes are uneconomic in certain areas.
There is a strong case for assistance to the local ferry man to put him on a regular timetable with controlled prices and decent rewards, and to the local bus service operator in some cases, so that he can be assisted to give a decent service to the people concerned.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: A most interesting situation has developed. We are confronted with the astounding situation in which the Secretary of State has been forced to accept the onus of keeping transport services alive in the Highlands and Islands by taking quite dictatorial powers. He is enabled to spend much public money in building and chartering ships, in keeping open the sea routes and in providing bus and road services in the Highlands. When we look at this against the background of the pledges of hon. Members opposite not to support

nationalisation in any guise whatever, which was the pledge at the last General Election given in the Scottish Unionist Party election address, we are astounded. I never imagined that I should be confronted in the House with a situation such as that which has developed.
I am not against what is being proposed tonight. I want the Secretary of State to understand this fully: I am all for keeping these services going and improving them, but Scottish hon. Members on both sides of the House should seriously reflect on what we are doing and whether we are going the right way about it. It is quite improper that we should try to keep going these routes in the Outer Islands, the bus routes and the trade services on the West Coast of Scotland, and the whole of coastwise shipping for which MacBraynes cater in the way indicated by the Secretary of State in these agreements and Undertakings, and in the Act of 1960, because these vital services are being tackled in a purely administrative way by the Scottish Office. In other words, they are an appendage of the Secretary of State for Scotland. He is bound to admit that already it is impossible for him to keep closely in touch with all the services for which he is responsible to the House. It is true that he has a Minister of State and three Under-Secretaries of State, and I do not know how many other appendages to help him go through life with a little ease, but it is common knowledge that the job is already far too onerous.
I do not expect that the Secretary of State will agree, but if he wants to provide suitable transport services to the Outer Isles in the way which he has indicated in one of the draft Undertakings, surely the proper way to tackle the problem is by the formation of a transport board responsible for transport services in Scotland. If the yardstick is to be that the Secretary of State must take over and operate uneconomic services when all the indications are that there will be many more of them, where will he stop? Will he help those parts of the country where problems can be met only by shipping or other parts of the country which, because of their remoteness, need MacBrayne's lorries to


bring in the essential supplies, or MacBrayne's coastal shipping? If other services collapse or are declared uneconomic by Dr. Beeching or some other authority, will the Minister say, "This is no concern of mine"? He has accepted a responsibility which, if economic returns are to be the yardstick, will be an expanding responsibility in the years that lie ahead.
I want to ask some questions about the draft Undertakings. The first concerns the draft Undertaking between the Secretary of State and Orkney Steam Navigation Company Ltd. In paragraph 1 we read,
Subject to the provisions of Clause 3 hereof, the Secretary of State undertakes to pay to the Company on execution of these presents by way of grant the sum of £8,061 15s., being three-quarters of the costs of the survey in the year 1960 of the Company's vessel, the s.s. 'Earl Thorfinn', which costs amounted to £10,749.
What does the "costs of the survey" mean? Does it mean a survey in connection with necessary repairs? As it stands it is not intelligible to the ordinary reader.

Mr. Maclay: It is a technical term. It is the survey which a ship must have at regular intervals to retain its certificate for passengers and trade.

Mr. Manuel: In other words, it is the usual Board of Trade regulation certificate. But a cost of £10,000 for the vessel and £8,000 for the survey are remarkable figures. If it had been a survey for repair with work to follow, I could understand it, but when this sort of survey costs almost as much as the ship, some explanation is necessary. How often do these surveys arise? What liabilities are we undertaking as taxpayers for these surveys?
In the final paragraph of Clause 2 we read:
In ascertaining the profit or loss during the period commencing on the First day of January, 1961, and terminating on the Thirty-first day of December, 1961, the aforesaid sum of £8,061 15s. shall not be taken into account".
We should be told why this £8,000 should not be taken into account. In Clause 3 (b) we have the total cost of these company's two ships and "heritable and moveable assets" together as £26,500. What is the individual cost of these ships? I know that one is

£10,749. If the other is the same, what are the "heritable and moveable assets"? What sort of liabilities are we taking on?

Mr. Grimond: I know that this may be surprising, but the figure of £10,000 is not the value of the vessel. The value of the vessel is far below that, I regret to say. It is one of the curious anomalies of the situation.

Mr. Manuel: It is very misleading, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. But we should have the figures split up. In his draft Undertakings the Secretary of State is being given wide, sweeping, dictatorial powers. Practically every Clause mentions that the Secretary of State may do this, that or the other. We are here as members of the Opposition probing the Government and trying to find out whether public money is being spent wisely and well.
The agreement for the new company being formed by the Orkney Islands Shipping Company Ltd. is for six years whereas the agreement with MacBraynes is for ten years. Is there any reason why the Undertaking with Orkney Island Shipping Company Ltd. is for a shorter period? This is a very important point. The Undertaking reads:
So long as this Undertaking continues in force the Secretary of State shall have the right to nominate two persons to be members of the Board of Directors of the Company.
and they shall be British subjects. I want the Secretary of State to have some power, but if he has only the right to nominate, his nominations can be turned down. The Secretary of State says that he has appointed persons, but the Undertaking does not give him power to appoint. I think we are entitled to a better explanation.
The Undertaking could have given an indication that one of the nominees should have had experience of and been familiar with the organisation of workers. We have not had enough of that kind of appointment in our draft Regulations. The Secretary of State has the right to appoint two persons in the case of each Undertaking, and he should consider, at some time in the future, whether one of those persons should be familiar with the organisation of workers and with welfare conditions. This is a very common thing in publicly owned


and nationalised industry, and if we are to accept nationalisation we must swallow its edges as well as its body.
Subsection (2) reads:
The Company shall, during the currency of this Undertaking, pay to its directors by way of remuneration whether by way of fees or other emoluments"—
and we should be told what other emoluments there can be—
(exclusive of vouched expenses incurred by them or any of them) such annual sum as may be agreed between the Secretary of State and the Company in respect of each of its Directors or failing agreement such sum as shall be fixed by the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State can try to get agreement, but if he does not get agreement he can act in any case. There is no arbitration. This is dictatorial, all right. We should be told what sort of annual sum the Secretary of State is thinking of in respect of these nominated directors.
Clause 5 concerns the scope of the services. It refers to the "Approved Services", and I should like to know what they are. The Housing Bill contained the expression "approved houses", and that led us into some queer corners. What are "Approved Services"? Has the right hon. Gentleman in mind daily services? I know that at present some of these services are weekly or fortnightly. Has he a more regular service in mind? Will the word "approved" prove to be of great benefit to the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), for instance? In his constituency there are certain piers at which MacBrayne's steamers call, and which are used to get cattle shipped and calves to market. Will the crofting communities in certain areas of the Highlands really be able to save money, instead of having to feed stock at pierheads, and all the rest, when they should be getting on the way down to Oban, where they can be sold?
Under Clause 9 of the Undertaking, the Orkney Islands Shipping Company
undertakes at all times to the best of its ability to ensure that the Approved Services connect with other public transport services.
My mind immediately turns to the rail services. If those are to be wiped out, what will be connected? Is the Minister thinking of railhead connections? Is he saying that they should be kept alive? Although it is quite uneconomic, will the

Oban service be kept alive to connect with MacBrayne steamers bringing cattle and other merchandise from the islands?
Clause 14 provides that:
The Secretary of State undertakes to advance to the Company by way of loan such sums as the Secretary of State considers expedient on such terms as he may approve for specified purposes including the provision of working capital".
Here are more dictatorial powers. What wider powers could there be? May we have some indication of the size of these loans and the rate of interest? Will the Secretary of State take as his yardstick the Public Works Loan Board rate of interest? Will it be comparable with the rate of interest which local authorities are paying for housing loans on the open market? We should be made cognisant of these things. In the Undertaking between the Secretary of State and MacBrayne, only one director so far has been nominated. I cannot say "appointed", although the Secretary of State said it. I understand that he has no power to appoint. I hope that this matter will be cleared up.
Another matter which intrigues me is the provision that any question or dispute must be referred in the event of no agreement to the Sheriff of Caithness, Sutherland, Orkney and Shetland, and in the case of MacBrayne, to the Sheriff of Lanarkshire. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) knows anything about the sheriffs, but here we are choosing between two of them. I do not want to take sides between these sheriffdoms. This is another matter that might be explained to us.
I am also intrigued by the provision in Clause 6 (6) of the MacBrayne Undertaking which provides that:
The Company may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, substitute a ship for a vehicle, or a vehicle for a ship, as the means by which any of the Approved Services is maintained…
This is the power which hon. Members opposite denied to British Railways, but this is another nationalised service. Why are we treating it differently? Is it simply because we are appointing a Board which can earn dividend on the capital invested? The £800,000 invested by MacBraynes can earn a 6⅝ per cent.


dividend, and here the Government are allowing the Board to do something which British Railways cannot do. In the Transport Bill, the only time that this can be done is if the line is closed or discontinued. On this occasion, there is no such provision. I do not say that I want it. I am merely pointing out the inconsistencies in these documents.
I should like to say something about competition. The Under-Secretary of State believes in competition. Every now and again, he preaches sermons to his constituents about the value of competition, the great spirit which it engenders, and so on. When it gets too monopolistic, however, there is no competition. Here, we have a little competition. Buses are in competition with rail services.
MacBraynes are being allowed to pay 6⅝ per cent. on invested capital. MacBraynes run buses from Glasgow to Fort William. I have passed them many a time along by Loch Lomond. They are a big nuisance, because they take up too much of the road. I understand that they run also to Oban.
MacBraynes are being subsidised, but British Railways are criticised when they have comparable routes covering these areas. The Government either will have to subsidise them or to close the lines. Dr. Beeching, I believe, will say that they are quite uneconomic. The Government, however, will be in a complete jam because they cannot close these lines. There are not the indigenous resources that will keep the Highlands turning over, either in the hotel trade or in industry. Therefore, whilst there is a good deal of loose talk about all this, these main line services cannot be closed. To close them would be ridiculous.
What does the Under-Secretary think about this competition with another subsidised service—British Railways—between Glasgow and Fort William and Oban? Many of these buses are running. In the summer, they multiply and there are fleets of them.
A host of powers are being conferred on the Secretary of State and I end by commenting on just one of them. MacBraynes are to be permitted to pay 6⅝ per cent. on the invested capital. In

the light of the upgrading of grants in these Undertakings and in the light of the interest payment which can be earned on invested capital, may we have an indication of how much has been earned in the last ten years from Messrs. MacBraynes in interest on invested capital? For a while, the rate was 5 per cent. For a time it was a little less, but is now up to 6⅝ per cent. Why is the rate of interest being increased? What has been the turnover of interest to MacBrayne shareholders during the last ten-year period?

8.48 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Let me right away join in the congratulations which have been offered to the Government in their acceptance of the policy of nationalisation. I understand why no hon. Member from the benches opposite has ventured into this debate. I expected a stirring speech from the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) denouncing this nationalisation by the back door. The hon. Member distributed leaflets, I have no doubt, in his constituency during the General Election pledging himself not to do this. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) must know quite well that tens of thousands of these leaflets were distributed in Edinburgh, certainly in my constituency, pledging all the Tory candidates not to introduce any more nationalisation by back-door methods. I should like to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say about that now.
The Secretary of State is now becoming a shipowner on a large scale. He will end up, even as a result of what we have been told tonight, by becoming the owner of five quite large ships, two of which are to be chartered out to a company which he controls and for which he provides the capital. This is more nationalisation. The Under-Secretary ought to watch where he is going. Before he knows where he is he will be nationalising all forms of transport and other things.

Miss Margaret Herbison: Haulage, perhaps.

Mr. Willis: It would not be a bad idea if he nationalised that. I must advise him that this is the road he is taking. We shall certainly welcome him on these


benches whenever he realises exactly what doctrine he is supporting.
Under the proposal we are to get five ships. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said that he would like to see the second ship for the Orkney Islands Shipping Company Ltd. proceeded with. I should like to see all five proceeded with. This would be a good thing, because shipping is facing uncertainties. I spoke to the Under-Secretary about this. When is any decision to be taken about building the vehicular ships for the Western Isles? A number of people would like to know when this decision is to be taken. They would also like the Government to start placing contracts. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) will be interested in this. Firms on the Clyde would certainly like to know. The Government ought to be giving this much more urgent consideration than they have given it up to now. It has been known for a considerable time that this has to be done and this is an appropriate time to proceed with it.
I want to ask the Under-Secretary a few questions about MacBraynes. I did not quite follow the financial details. The Secretary of State said that the private capital at present in MacBraynes is £½ million. This is to be increased to £800,000. I intervened and asked the right hon. Gentleman how it was to be increased. He said, "We are capitalising reserves". This means that private shareholders in MacBraynes are now to get 6⅝ per cent. not on £500,000 but on £800,000. They will get a very considerable increase in their dividends as a result of the company having been able to accumulate savings, thanks to being subsidised and guaranteed by the Government.
An important principle is involved. If the Government subsidise a company and undertake to underwrite its losses, it is only right that the Government should benefit from the gains and not the shareholders, who do not have to bear any of the losses. The shareholders do not stand to lose anything at all. If the company loses, then under the terms of the agreement we are considering the losses are borne by the Government. That is not what is happening. What is happening is that the owners of the private capital are receiving a very considerable

award. They are now to receive almost twice as much as they have been receiving in the past. Why this tenderness, why this solicitude for the private shareholders, whose capital is guaranteed by the Government and whose losses are borne by the Government?
I find this difficult to accept as a principle. If the private shareholders were to bear some of the losses, then, fair enough, they ought to enjoy some of the gains, but I cannot see why they should benefit to the tune of an additional £300,000 of capital on which they are to get 6⅝ per cent. guaranteed interest. We ought to have some explanation of that.
The next point is the question of a freight rates policy. My hon. Friends have raised a lot of points about this, and my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan), who has an intimate knowledge of this problem, has put forward the case for very low rates. He has pointed out that if the Western Isles had been attached to the mainland by a neck of land, they would have a trunk road which would cost them nothing. What is the policy of the Government about this? I think that we should be told what is the Government's policy about the fixing of rates.
Reading Clause 19, which deals with rates and fares, I notice a rather curious omission. It provides:
(d) in exercising his powers under this Clause the Secretary of State shall have regard to (i) the general level of other transport charges,
I do not know what transport charges there are, other than MacBraynes, in some of these areas. However, that is one of the considerations. It continues:
(ii) the financial results of the Company's activities and the amount of grant payable to the Company under this Undertaking and (iii) the effect on the economy of the area served by the Company.
There is nothing whatever about the social life of the community.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Perhaps my hon. Friend will compare these figures, which the Secretary of State may have in mind. In Lanarkshire, we can travel, and I do myself, about 16 miles on a return journey for 1s. 9d., whereas the same distance in the islands of Harris or Lewis would cost about 3s. 6d.–100 per cent. more. He could take other


examples, but that is quite characteristic. If he is thinking in terms of associated services, like bus services, that is an exact analogy.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. It is the first consideration which the right hon. Gentleman has to have in mind in considering freight charges, namely:
(i) the general level of other transport charges.
What are the comparisons to be made? The point I wanted to raise concerns the social life of the area. We can fix freights in accordance with the economic life of the area which may not have a great deal to do with the social life of the area, but, surely, the fact is, as was indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles, that here we have areas of depopulation, areas of declining population, where villages are gradually disappearing until in certain areas there is probably only one or two crofts left in them. There is nothing in this Clause which provides that the right hon. Gentleman has to take any cognisance of that at all, but I should have thought that that was one of the considerations which he should have to take into account.
What does the right hon. Gentleman visualise as the future of the Highlands and its transport services? That is a pertinent question because we are here dealing with an agreement which is to last for ten years, and we ought to have some indication of how the right hon. Gentleman expects these services to develop. For each of the last ten years there has been a decline in population and many of the bus services—and these agreements apply to MacBraynes bus services—are declining and, according to the Ministry of Transport Report at the weekend, many are likely to disappear.
It is a matter for regret that we are considering these agreements in isolation. We have now had a Report on the Bus Services in the Highlands and Islands which draws several important conclusions, makes certain recommendations and points out certain difficulties. It points out the difference between MacBraynes and Highland Omnibuses. That is interesting because MacBraynes gets a direct subsidy for its services under these agreements while Highland

Omnibuses does not and has to support these services from those in the more profitable areas of the British Transport Commission.
Why is there this difference. Would it not have been better to have studied the problem as a whole and to treat everyone similarly? The Report goes on to indicate certain steps which could be taken to assist the bus services and in paragraph 56 it says:
…there should be one body or authority charged with the duties of determining whether a bus service is essential and the extent lo which it requires financial assistance and of awarding contracts to enable essential services to be maintained. This body should also have a knowledge of other transport facilities serving the area. This body could not appropriately be the local authorities"—
as was recommended by the Jack Committee in respect of subsidies—
the Scottish Transport Council or the Scottish Transport Users' Consultative Committee. It may be necessary to have effective arrangements to provide for the co-ordination of all forms of public transport in the Highlands and Islands.
That is the final recommendation of this Report and anybody who examines the problem will agree with it. It is getting somewhere near our concept of a Highland development authority, one authority to examine all these matters and to put schemes into operation.
I regret that these agreements have come along before we have had time to consider the Ministry of Transport's Report. However, what does the right hon. Gentleman visualise happening during the next ten years? Will there be more co-ordination? Is it the policy that MacBraynes should develop to pick up some of the services which might otherwise disappear in the Highlands, so that those might become eligible for a direct subsidy? Does he visualise MacBraynes having responsibility for some of the ferry services, which we were promised could be done under the 1960 Act? What does the Minister have in mind with regard to unifying these services in order that we may get the most efficient service possible and meet the demands of the Highland area?

9.5 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: We last considered an agreement of this type over nine years ago and, as has already been said by my hon. Friend the


Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan), the late Sir Gurney Braithwaite on that occasion said that he came to us laden with gold. Whether it was much find gold or not I do not know, but when he used that phrase our thoughts were directed to the fact that the gold he brought was to be bestowed wholly on the services that were to be provided in the islands of Scotland.
Tonight we have had it made clear that not only will the people of the Western Isles, the Orkneys and Shetlands and so on get these services, but that to the private investor there is to be given every year a sum of at least £56,000. Whatever may be the lot of the people in these depopulated areas, however insecure their lot may be, the lot of the private investor is to be carefully guarded by the Government.
I thought it was noteworthy that tonight the Secretary of State did not look very far into the future. In 1952 the Government were prepared to think in terms of a subsidy of £360,000, but tonight there was no attempt to look so far ahead. Compared with 1914, the value of the £ was worth 5s. 5d. in 1952, as was revealed a few days ago, and today it is worth 4s. 6d. During the period of validity of the expiring agreement the value of the £ has fallen by 20 per cent., which means that if the Secretary of State were to face the future as it was faced in 1952 we should be thinking tonight in terms of a subsidy of something like £420,000.
After ten years' experience of Tory Government the right hon. Gentleman has no more confidence in it and he cannot bear the thought of looking even a year ahead. I think that he is now living on a day-to-day basis. It is too far to look ahead to £420,000, because experience has taught him that even he cannot depend too firmly on the promises of a Tory Government.
A good deal has been said about the need for a fully intergrated service. The Undertaking states that its purpose is
to make provision for sea transport services serving the Western Highlands and Islands.
As I have already said, I also thought that part of the purpose was to secure the future of the investor. Of course, that has to be mentioned by hon. Members

on this side of the House; naturally it is not emphasised in the Undertaking.
Of course, if one lives on an island, sea transport services are necessary, but the necessity becomes less sharp with the passing of time. Changes are taking place, and today we can travel by methods other than by sea, road and rail between the Western Isles and Glasgow much quicker than we used to be able to do. The travelling time by rail, steamer and road between Glasgow and Benbecula is anything from 12 to 16 or 17 hours. We can travel between those two places by air in an hour.
Obviously the Government must face this question of an integrated transport service and not think entirely of a sea transport service. Certain terms are defined in the Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Act, 1960. It is stated:
'sea transport services' means public transport services…provided in an undertaking which consists of, or includes to a substantial extent, the provision of public transport by sea".
That decision leaves a gap, as it were, which could be filled by services of another type. If we look at the definition of the word "ships" as accepted in the agreement before us and as given in the 1960 Act, we find that:
ships' includes boats and vessels of any description for use in navigation.
The words:
…vessels of any description for use in navigation
must include the helicopter and hovercraft. While they may not be navigated on the sea, they are vessels which are navigated.

Mr. Willis: A hovercraft can go on the sea.

Mr. Rankin: Of course, a hovercraft can use the sea and the air. We must talk about transport in terms, not merely of one type of transport, but of all the types of transport which are available.
That is my criticism of this agreement. It is a matter of real regret to all of us on this side of the House that today, when we are looking forward to the next ten years, the Government should ask Parliament to give its blessing to an agreement which is already out of countenance in the times in which we live. It has no meaning at all in the


present age, and it will be useless before the ten years for which it provides have ended. It should have been thought of in much broader terms.
Today we have three different methods of undertaking journeys between the Western Isles and other parts of Scotland. We can go by rail, boat and bus; we can go by air; or we can go by air, using different types of aircraft. We can go by rail from most of our big cities to Mallaig and then cross the sea by helicopter or hovercraft, and complete the journey by bus. We have three different forms of transport.

Mr. Willis: Are not they going to close the railway line to Mallaig?

Mr. Rankin: I am not sure how far I can be enticed off the track of the debate by the helpfulness of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Willis: In that case MacBrayne's would have to provide a bus service, which would bring the company under the provisions of this agreement.

Mr. Rankin: Let me continue with the point I was making. We have three different modes of travel to a relatively sparsely populated part of Scotland. Obviously it should not remain this way. This is an invitation to co-ordinate or integrate those services, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) pointed out, we are presented with the position that we are giving a subsidy to one form of road transport, but we have another form of road transport which must get its subsidy—I am referring to Highland Omnibuses—out of the rich routes over which the company operates in other parts of Scotland.

Mr. Willis: The Scottish Omnibus Group.

Mr. Rankin: Yes. In other words, the company is providing the subsidy.
We have a similar position in the air, because B.E.A., which provides transport to the Western Isles, does it with a subsidy of £280,000, which it must recoup from its richer routes. If the Government place on it the onus of providing a service on the poorer route to the Western Isles, it will become more difficult to carry out this service because

the Government are introducing competition on the richer routes. This is bound to hamper B.E.A. in the job it is doing in the Western Isles.
Of course, this reinforces the claim that if the Government consider that a subsidy is necessary for rail and boat services, they are admitting the claim which has been recommended by a Select Committee of the House that a subsidy is necessary for air services if we are to get the type of service which is demanded today in those parts of the country. If we do not get down to the problem of thinking out how we are to co-ordinate air services and surface services to those parts of Scotland, we shall be faced with a hopeless position, not merely from the financial point of view but also from the point of view of maintaining the social life of those parts—the type of life which is absolutely necessary if we are to retain people in those distant areas.
Most people in Scotland are really within easy reach of the great population centres, the places to which our fellow countrymen flock on Saturday afternoon to see a football match, to shop or to go to the pictures. Those places can be reached more easily by those in the populated areas than by those in the distant parts about which we are talking. They are treated as separate people. They are separated geographically from the rest of the country, and the draft Undertakings tend to continue to separate them in a social sense, too.
To take Larkhall as an example, a married couple living there may decide on a Saturday morning to go in the afternoon to Glasgow, the husband to a football match and the wife to go shopping and both to visit the pictures later on, and yet be able to return home the same evening. That is possible for people living in villages all round the central belt of Scotland. But it is impossible for those living in such a place as Benbecula or Stornoway. If we are to hold people in those places, we must make their contacts with the great cities such as Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh as close as those who live on the Scottish mainland.
I see the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) smiling. I do not know whether this matter amuses him. If he believes that people in the


islands should be treated differently from others on the mainland, he should say so now. I will readily give way to him if he finds anything very amusing in what I am suggesting.
What I am suggesting is that through a co-ordinated air transport service it ought to be easy for people in the separated parts of Scotland to travel to whichever city they choose and enjoy their day there and then return to their homes on the same day. We must give them the feeling that they are part and parcel of the life of their country and that the advantages which belong to those living in the more closely populated parts of Scotland belong also to those living in its distant parts.
That would be a real contribution one which draft Undertakings of this type ought to be able to give—to the solution of the most serious problem facing our country, that of preventing the drift to parts of Scotland which already contain far too many people.
Clause 8 proposes that we should maintain
good, substantial and efficient vessels
My hon. Friend the Member for East, Edinburgh suggested that as the representative of a shipping area in Scotland I would be interested in this. Indeed I am, and now that the Secretary of State has become a shipbuilder and is proposing to build ships and charter them, I hope that he will keep Fairfield, Stephens and Harland and Wolff's in mind. My hon. Friend suggested that five ships were now needed and since there are three shipbuilding yards in my constituency, that leaves the Secretary of State two ships with which to do as he pleases. I am certainly taken by the phrase:
good, substantial and efficient vessels
and I welcome that proposal.
For a number of years I sailed as a servant—a purser—with MacBrayne's in the service that operated between Banavie and Inverness. The vessel on which I sailed was not like Gaul—"divided into three parts." Astern, amidships, and the bow were all of different ages. Amidships she was the oldest. The stern part was the next and the bow was the youngest of the lot. Naturally, being the youngest, she rose

to the rough weather most gaily while the other two parts could hardly stand up to the pace which she set; so that they shook and quivered all over in the most amazing manner.
I am glad to note that the patching-up days have gone and that we are now to get:
good, substantial and efficient vessels
which, in stormy weather, will behave as if they were just one vessel and not made up of three different parts combined into a single unit.
I do not know why the Secretary of State does not encourage MacBrayne's to resume that service down the great glen through Loch Ness, Loch Oich and Loch Lochy, because I understand that some encouragement to resume this service—

Mr. Willis: There is a service today.

Mr. Rankin: I do not think so.

Mr. Willis: One can go by boat and take a trip through Loch Ness.

Mr. Rankin: Then I am glad to know that the service has been restored. I do not know whether it is as frequent as it used to be, but I gather that the frequency of the service is a matter that needs to be looked into. There is, of course, a great attraction in Loch Ness, for it contains a monster—a monster of a most co-operative kind. In the cold weather in the winter "Nessie" goes underneath in the deepest part of Loch Ness and remains quiet until the tourist season comes along. She then comes up to see the tourists.
There is no reason why we should not provide more frequent services on Loch Ness, continuing on, perhaps, through the other lochs, so that the tourists may have a chance of seeing "Nessie" when she comes along in the summer. I think that it would be a tremendous attraction, because we might be able to see her at close quarters, a feat which so far has never been achieved.
During the three years that I sailed Loch Ness I never heard of "Nessie". I believe she was spending her time in another part of the loch. There were rumours then that there was a gentleman monster around and that "Nessie" was otherwise engaged. Whether the results will be fruitful or not, one can only


wait and see. Nevertheless, what an attraction it would be if the Secretary of State would press on MacBraynes to give this service. He could do it. He has been called a dictator. Does he deny it? He is, of course, a dictator and he has the power. Let him use it and try to give us in that part of Scotland better and more frequent services than we now have.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: I wish to ask two perhaps rather extended questions.
I was rather interested in the arrangements which, I understand, have been made with the Orkney Islands Shipping Company, by which the company would be paid £26,000. From what the Secretary of State said, I gathered that the company was in a very bad way, in fact, so bad a way that it was not prepared to carry on even with a subsidy. Apparently it was exceedingly difficult to persuade it to carry on temporarily until permanent arrangements could be made. When the company goes out of business it is to be paid £26,000.
I should like to know for what it is to be paid £26,000. Is it being paid £26,000 for old ships which are to be scrapped? Is it to be paid £26,000 for office premises which will not be, or cannot be, used? What is the company to be paid this money for? If a company is in such a state of inability to pay its way that even with a subsidy offered to it it is not prepared to carry on, I question whether its assets are worth as much as £26,000.
My other question relates to the appreciation of capital of David MacBrayne Ltd. That has been mentioned several times, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). I understand that at present the company's capital is valued at £500,000. On the basis of £500,000, it has a guaranteed income—guaranteed in the sense of so much percentage profit or dividend on interest payments of £500,000. I understood that that £500,000 is to be raised to £800,000 and that it is to get payment on the basis of £800,000.

Mr. Ross: Mr. Ross  indicated dissent.

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is shaking his head.

Mr. Ross: I think that my hon. Friend is making an understandable mistake in relation to the calculation for the purposes of dividend. Dividend may be calculated from the issued capital, but in relation to interest calculation which enters into the formula, it is the capital employed.

Mr. Lawson: Is the capital employed not reckoned to be £800,000?

Mr. Ross: £1 million.

Mr. Lawson: I understood that the capital employed was £1 million, but that for the purpose of calculation it was £800,000. Is the dividend to be calculated on £800,000? This shows how much we need to have the matter cleared up.
I should like to know how there has been this appreciation of capital from £500,000. From where has the capital come? From where have these reserves come? I must confess that I have not studied the draft Undertaking closely, and that I had no intention of intervening, but the matter was raised and no answer that I found satisfactory ha-been given. I understand that the agreement has been negotiated and will become law after this evening.
There is what is called a "subsidised profit". If the subsidised profit exceeds £30,000, £15,000 will be retained by the company and £15,000 will go to the State. I think that the balance left over will be divided between them.

Mr. Willis: It goes to the State.

Mr. Lawson: If there is a loss of £30,000 the State will pay £15,000 and the company will have to pay £15,000 to make good the loss. Up to £30,000 the State shares 50 per cent. of the subsidised profit or the subsidised loss. I notice in Clause 16 (4) the Undertaking says:
If for any two consecutive years during the currency of this Undertaking the subsidised profit or deficiency for each year exceeds £30,000 the grant referred to in Clause 12 hereof shall be reviewed and altered.
I understand that if there is a loss of more than £30,000 over a period of years more will have to be spent by the State. On the other hand, if there is a profit


of more than £30,000 over a number of years the subsidy will be adjusted so that the company will not get so much money. If this type of agreement has been in existence over a number of years, it seems strange that there could be an accumulation of money, to enable this considerable increase of capital to take place. Where does the money come from?

Mr. Ellis Smith: England.

Mr. Lawson: I will take my hon. Friend up on that and support some of his schemes. We will try to put these things right for the sake of English Members.
Where has the money come from which has enabled this write-up to take place? Has it been money retained in the company? Has it been invested? Has it been the earning of profits or dividends on the investment? If so, how much? If not, has it been ploughed back into the company in the sense of buying new boats and buses? Is the company now so much larger in terms of its equipment and the capital employed—because capital employed means equipment. Does it mean that over these years during which the company has been steadily subsidised by the State it has been adding to its reserves, building up the number of its buses and ships, so that in terms of capital engaged and equipment being employed it is worth about twice as much as it was earlier?
If that is the case, how does it come about that this company has been subsidised over all these years but has been able to build up in this way? If that is not the case and this capital appreciation or write-up is merely a write-up in figures and does not represent a genuine addition to the company's working assets, how does this arise, who agreed on it and where can we see the accounts so that we can see what has been taking place?

9.40 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I should congratulate my hon. Friends on their restraint, because with three such Undertakings before us, and in view of the fact that we seldom have the chance to expand on the subject of the Islands and Highlands and these services, there is no end to the questions which we could have put. It may well be that I

shall add considerably to the number of questions and probably to the confusion which there may be about some of them. We must congratulate ourselves on this occasion that we are discussing these Undertakings at a time which even in the Parliamentary sense might be considered fairly early. Ten years ago when I made a speech from a less exhalted position, or a more exhalted position, whichever way one looks at it, it was 1.43 a.m. That was the sort of time to which we were relegated in those days.
Let us appreciate the importance of what we are doing, not only from the point of view of the Highlands and the Islands and the Northern Isles but from the point of view of the House—not least from the Government side of it, although hon. Members opposite are showing little interest in what we are doing; for it was hon. Members opposite who, at the last General Election, declared that they would have nothing to do with nationalisation in any shape or form. No one was more vehement about it than the Liberal Party in Scotland at the time. But the Liberal Party are now prepared to accept nationalisation in respect of the Liberal leader's own constituents. I think that he should reconsider his attitude to the constituents of other people. It is only the other week that he led his accumulated ranks into the Lobby in favour of the Government's Transport Bill to deny to the people of the mainland the benefits which he is insisting upon for his own constituents.
The draft Undertaking concerning the Orkney Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., shows a grant towards the 1960 survey of the vessel s.s. "Earl Thorfinn." This is December, 1961. We could not have waited very much longer and I was not surprised that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) rather twitted the Government on the belatedness of these provisions. With me, he will remember that it is nearly two years since we discussed and passed on Second Reading the Bill from which these draft Undertakings stem.
At that time the right hon. Gentleman was complaining that it was three years since the MacGillivray Committee had made certain recommendations in relation to the services with which we are dealing. We have to look back over the


historical aspects to 1957. Why has the Secretary of State delayed for so long bringing these agreements forward? This is nearly the middle of December, and this Undertaking winds up the activities of the company at the end this year. Even now he has given no full indication of what is involved in relation to expenditure for the Government. Will he tell us the cost of the Government grant towards the survey? We have the figure of £8,061 15s. He has told us about the payment in respect of heritable and moveable assets of £26,500. That makes a total of £34,561 15s. But we still do not know what is the loss over the year and, as we do not know that, we do not know in relation to the new company, the Orkney Islands Shipping Co. Ltd. which is being called into being by the Secretary of State, what its loss will be.
When we were discussing the Bill in Committee the Under-Secretary of State said that in the case of any contract for over £10,000 the House would be able to examine and scrutinise expenditure. How can we examine and scrutinise expenditure when we are not even told what it is? We are giving the Government a blank cheque in respect of each of these Undertakings.

Mr. Manuel: Dictatorial.

Mr. Ross: Dictatorial. I have used worse words than that of the Government before now. This is the reluctant bureaucrat in person. At every election he proclaims that he will have nothing to do with centralisation, and that we must keep these powers from the bureaucrats in St. Andrew's House or Westminster. But every time he brings forth a Bill, or even a meagre Statutory Instrument, we find that under its provisions "The Secretary of State shall do this, and decide that." That is the case in respect of each of these Undertakings.
The Minister should give us much more information about the finance involved in the first Undertaking, concerning the Orkney Steam Navigation Co. He told us that it might be about £10,000, and it is only because it might be about that sum that he is putting forward the Undertaking. That is a very coy one. Under Clause 1 alone he is already committed to paying over £8,000.

There is not much doubt about the Undertaking being necessary. What worries me is whether this is an Undertaking at all, because the right hon. Gentleman has not chartered these ships. I am sorry that the Lord Advocate is not here to tell us how he works out the legality of the payments under Clauses 1 and 2.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) put some valid points concerning the sum of £26,500. This company was going bust. It could not carry on these services any longer. One would have thought that it would have been glad to get rid of its obligations, but we are here paying it at least £34,000, and there is a possiblility that we will pay something more like £44,000. The nation is paying for the obligation to run services which, at the moment, we know will involve a loss.
It is all very well to talk about "unrelieved pessimism"; nothing said in Committee offered us any relief. It is a question of realism and facing the fact of possible trading losses. We are entitled to much more information, and should be told why the nation should buy over this liability. This may be the scrap value of the two ships. I can understand that. But let us face the fact that this is a case of the failure of private enterprise. We have been unable to feed it with carrots or seduce it with subsidies, or cajole it in any other way. We have to take it over completely, and pay for the privilege.
The second Undertaking calls into being a new company. Out goes the Steam Navigation Co. and in comes the Orkney Islands Shipping Co. This is naked nationalisation, with a mere fig leaf of a company nominated by the Secretary of State. It has no share capital. We know how two directors are appointed, but I should like to know how the others are appointed. I expect the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland to have something to say about local representation, and the feeling that every area is not represented. How are the areas to be represented?
Every loss by this company will be borne by the State. The State will provide the working capital. The company will have the right to raise money by loan up to £50,000, but the State will underwrite that loan. In return, we have a


new director of the North Isles shipping services, the great approver—the Secretary of State for Scotland. We have had approved schools and we have had approved houses. Now we are to have approved ships and approved services.
This equally applies to MacBrayne. In the last agreement in 1952 and before that in 1949 and in 1938 the services were called "general services" but now they are Approved Services, and who approves them? Hughie Long from Gourock. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Leburn), does not know who Hughie Long is. He should read the speeches of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
This was a very good speech and that is why I keep quoting it at the right hon. Gentleman and reminding him of what he said in the past about dictatorial powers and the dangers of centralising authority in the hands of the Secretary of State. He is now the Secretary of State. We should be absolutely clear in our minds that in the Orkney Isles we have a nationalised service, and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is quite right—there follows from that, by virtue of this Undertaking, the right of Parliamentary Questions and scrutiny, to my mind without any limit.
The third Undertaking is very important from the point of view of the Western Isles, and in considering these Undertakings and all these services we should appreciate their importance to the people concerned. These islands could not live without the sea transport services. Private enterprise, limited as it is by the motivation of profit, finds no attraction in these services. If we were to rely on private enterprise these islands would become depopulated or return to a very primitive life indeed. Even where existing services have been withdrawn from the smaller islands we have already seen depopulation taking place.
Someone has said that these services are the highways of the islands, but my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) interrupted the debate to say that the money was coming from England. Let me remind my hon. Friend that more money has been spent in Hammersmith in the last year, for which the Scots are paying as well as the English, than has been

spent on MacBrayne or the Highland shipping services over the last ten years. If anyone wants to fight Bannockburn all over again, we will take him on tonight.
As I have said, we should appreciate the importance of these services to the islands. Every item that we take for granted and we can get by crossing the road to any shop must be taken to these islands by sea, and the chances are by land and then by sea again. And into the cost of every item—clothing, bread, cement, the tools of agriculture and masonry—freight charges enter, and if the cost of living has risen on the mainland it has risen even more in the islands. If, because of economic pressures, the shipping services are denied or reorganised in such a way as to save Government money, it means the denial of these essentials of life to the people of these islands. That is the importance of it.
It can be taken for granted that we certainly will not oppose any of these Undertakings tonight. What we asked for time and time again during the passing of the Bill, but it was denied us by the Under-Secretary, was that the Government should use far broader vision and take the opportunity, which seldom comes to us, of getting an Act of Parliament dealing with the limited transport aspects of the Islands and Highlands and to make it a little more comprehensive and all-embracing. I am sure that the Secretary of State wishes that he had taken our advice in view of the Report which has just been issued and which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has quoted—indeed, not only in view of that Report, but in view of the threats to the rest of the North of Scotland by the application of the Beeching principle to railways.
We are doing what is likely to be denied to many of the scattered areas on the mainland. It may be that we are already presuming far too much, because the new MacBrayne set-up throws a greater responsibility than ever upon the Secretary of State for Scotland. One or two of my hon. Friends and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland questioned the ability of the Scottish Department to deal properly with all this. There is a great measure of reason in that criticism.
There are tremendous new responsibilities for the Secretary of State. He skated over this MacBrayne business and rather suggested that it was more or less the same as before. Far from it. As I recall the last charter, the Secretary of State began by selecting the services and had only the right to approve or consent to changes. He also had the right to insist upon changes.
Now, the Secretary of State starts by having to approve each and every service. That is not the same thing at all. He becomes the great approver. Every service has to be approved by him and no service can be discontinued unless with his authority in writing, except for certain excursions and other things called services. I should like to know what that means and why this type of service, which is unqualified, should be included within the Clause. Apart from these and experimental and temporary services, every other service must be approved by the Secretary of State.
That is not all. There is one thing that the right hon. Gentleman scarcely mentioned. The last MacBrayne contract contained a specific paragraph specifying a building programme incumbent upon MacBraynes of one new passenger vessel and one new cargo vessel. There is nothing of the kind this time. The Secretary of State may, however, agree with Messrs. MacBrayne a capital investment programme. That covers the part that is missing, but with the difference that whereas before there was no reference to chartering, there is now a reference to it. From whom will MacBraynes charter vessels?

Mr. Manuel: The Secretary of State.

Mr. Ross: Yes, the Secretary of State.
I am delighted to see the Leader of the House with us. Less than a fortnight ago, he said at the Box that we could take it for granted that while he was Leader of the House, no new nationalisation Measure would be brought in. Let him come into the body of the kirk. Let him appreciate that here we have two new nationalisation Measures, one even more naked than the other. Therefore, when on Thursday he answers questions about the business for next week we shall expect an apology from him for misleading the nation, even

in the short time during which he has been Leader of the House.
Does the Secretary of State appreciate that we are in a considerable difficulty over the financial terms? In the last MacBraynes contract we knew exactly what we were up against because a specific sum was specified. It was £360,000, which included the calculation in respect of interest on capital. Now we are given no indication.
The Secretary of State told us that he thinks it will run at about the same rate, between £260,000 and £300,000 a year. What it runs at is entirely dependent on him, because he fixes the services and the fares. So at both ends the man who will determine what the balance of efficiency will be is the Secretary of State. That is why he has become so important. He also fixes the charter prices, but they will be covered within the expenditures.
He has not satisfied our appetite for information. He has certainly not satisfied us about the calculation of the guaranteed profit, which is not a fixed sum. It can be the interest on capital, plus or minus £15,000. The maximum is the interest on capital, plus £15,000. The minimum is the interest on capital, minus £15,000.
The interest on capital is calculated on the capital employed. That used to be £500,000, but we are told by the Secretary of State that it is now £1 million. This is important, because the new interest rate for the next five years is to be 6⅝ per cent. After 1967 it is to be whatever is the borrowing rate for Government borrowing. Six and five-eighths per cent. on £1 million works out at over £66,000. Plus or minus £15,000 is not a bad return for a company which would not be able to earn a penny if it was not assisted by the Government. It is propped up.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) said that the Toothill Report did not make any mention of these problems, unless it was to say that the Government should not prop up dying industries. This industry would die, as would the rest of the industry in the Western Isles, but for this bold injection of capital, which has been described by one Conservative Member of Parliament as "this annual subsidy". Is it right


that in respect of an undertaking of this nature, which is not a commercial enterprise, we should guarantee such a profit in this way?
An equally important thing has happened about dividends. The issued share capital has been increased from £500,000 to £800,000. Before this undertaking was signed the dividend was limited to 5 per cent. of £500,000, or £25,000, but it now becomes 6⅝ per cent. of £800,000. That is the possible. That is an increase to about £56,000. Where is the pay pause now? This is an increase in personal income, and the Leader of the House should be attending to the implications of these complex matters which the Scottish Treasury have been working out for him, undermining the whole fabric of Government. I do not doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to make another broadcast about this, because the Secretary of State for Scotland has let him down.
From £25,000 it goes up to £56,000. What is the justification for that? Is there any? My hon. Friend was wondering where the money was to come from. The money is coming out of the generosity of the Secretary of State in the past, and he has already promised generosity in the future, because whereas they have been building up reserves to replace their vessels in the future, the vessels are to be replaced by the Secretary of State. He will build them and acquire them and he will then charter them, and so they are relieved of a great responsibility in respect of the reserves. That is why it becomes new issued capital.
There are other important aspects of this matter which we have only touched upon and on which I do not think the Secretary of State did any real justice to what is before us. There was one other change on which I should like a little information, because I am curious about it. I think that it was the eighth change which I have noticed in the new form of contract, as compared with the last. The contract states, in regard to the drivers of road vehicles:
For the performance of such road services the Company undertakes to provide a sufficient number of competent drivers duly licensed to drive.
As soon as the Secretary of State touches anything, down go the standards.
Why has there been omitted from this paragraph the words
steady, honest, careful drivers of good character
because these were the words of the last contract? Is it that under the Tories, we cannot find such people, or is it that they all are that in the Western Isles?

Mr. Willis: A general lowering of moral standards under a Tory Government.

Mr. Ross: I should like to know. I am a rather simple-minded man, and I want to know why these words have been left out. Competent drivers are not necessarily careful drivers, but it may well be that the Secretary of State was prepared to lay a greater onus on MacBraynes than he is prepared to lay upon himself, since he is the centralised bureaucrat in respect of all this. Perhaps we should be given an answer on this point.
I am not satisfied about the omission of words from Part III of the old contract relating to mails. It was by virtue of the annual subsidy that a specific obligation was laid upon MacBraynes about the mails, concerning conveying and delivering to accredited officers and ancillary services, roadside delivery, conveyance and protection. The right hon. Gentleman now tells us that all this is now purely a commercial matter between the Post Office and MacBraynes. Within that commercial contract, does this Undertaking have no place at all? Does it mean that MacBraynes has a greater freedom to resist any pressure from the Post Office to take particular traffics?
I am not entirely happy about this, since it is to be a matter of commerce between MacBraynes and the Post Office. I think that probably the Post Office would rather have the protection of this Undertaking in which all they undertake to do is tied to the subsidy. It was the Post Office contract which, in 1891, first started the subsidy to MacBrayne's, and then we changed over in 1928 to a particularised annual subsidy for MacBraynes which, once again, was anchored to the mail contract.
I shall not say any more about the financial matters, but I come now to the question of rates and fares. The Secretary of State has taken on a most


important new obligation. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles will agree that it is the result of pressure which we put on the right hon. Gentleman during the Committee stage of the Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Bill. This obligation was not in the last contract and yet it now applies to the Orkney Shipping Company as well as to MacBraynes. Previously, the companies had to get the right hon. Gentleman's consent to a change of rates and fares, but now they must have the Secretary of State's written approval, with the exception of tourist and special passenger summer services.
In dealing with any application, the right hon. Gentleman has to consider the general level of other transport charges, the financial results of the company—which he himself can determine—and the effect on the economy of the area served. If he means what he says, he is the first Secretary of State for a long time to tackle the problem of freight charges. Hitherto, when the subject of freight charges has been raised, the Secretary of State has always been able to slide out of responsibility by saying that the matter had nothing to do with him. Now he has brought responsibility upon himself, and the services and the charges are his pigeon. No Scottish Member who is interested in the wellbeing of these areas will allow him to forget it.
I will begin by putting the complaints of the areas which have been left out and which have already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles. The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) is silenced by his Front Bench position, but the people of Iona are very much concerned about what is to happen to them, because, as part of the reorganisation, the number of island calls has been stepped down and only main ports are to be used. There is the further ferrying or transport by road of goods and passengers to areas which are no longer to be served direct. That is causing concern in some places.
I understand the argument that the reorganisation results in an immediate speeding up of the main services, but there will be a considerable slowing down at the delivery end, with the possibility of damage to goods by the duplication and trebling of handling and by additional

storing of goods which have to wait a long time, because of bad weather, before they can be ferried or hauled to their ultimate destination. When direct contact by vessels with one of the islands is broken, it is usually—and this is how the people regard it—the first step towards complete neglect.
That is why my hon. Friends have been right to insist upon a more comprehensive attitude. Why must we leave out the smaller ferries? If the roads are inadequate, as they are, people are right to protest. This is another task for the Secretary of State. I hope that we will face the future with some aggression, because we now have someone to get at when we discuss freight charges in the Highlands. For the first time we have a Minister who is responsible for the services and for the freight charges. For the first time we can in this House directly effect the improvements for which we have long pressed. I only hope that when we next have a similar debate some Conservatives will be prepared to accept their parliamentary responsibility and join with us in demanding the rights of the Highlands and Islands in respect of sea transport.

10.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that we have had an interesting debate on shipping services in the Highlands and Islands largely arising out of the Act that we discussed in Committee and in this House and passed last year.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has to a degree, I think he would admit, twitted the Government on the attitude that we have adopted to what he calls subsidies. I do not particularly mind whether we call them a bold injection of capital or subsidies. I think that we both know exactly what we mean.

Mr. Ross: As a farmer, the hon. Gentleman should.

Mr. Leburn: The hon. Gentleman also rather took my right hon. Friend to task for having changed the qualifications required for some of the drivers of MacBrayne's buses. I suggest that if we had taken the wording from the previous agreement my right hon. Friend would


have been accused of slavishly following the Minister of Transport.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman will be aware, of course, that when that agreement was being drawn up the Minister of Transport was his right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Leburn: That may be so, but I do not think that my right hon. Friend would want to be accused of following himself slavishly ten years later. The real reason for the change in words is this. When I was looking at these agreements I saw that the same words did not apply to the masters of ships, and it seemed to me that I might be asked by the hon. Gentleman why the same words did not apply to them.

Mr. Manuel: rose—

Mr. Leburn: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish these few remarks I will give him an apportunity to intervene later.
On the question of rates and fares, the hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that my right hon. Friend now has guiding signposts given to him in Clause 19, but I hope that hon. Members opposite will not expect my right hon. Friend to ignore principles of efficiency, and so on, when he is applying his mind to those signposts. The hon. Member has instanced the case of Iona, and I think that it would be quite wrong if, simply because of an injection of Government money or a subsidy, we had to ignore efficiency altogether.
That is by way of introduction. Now I should like to deal with points raised by hon. Members—

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman rather twitted us about the drivers. Was it really necessary to substitute for the words in the original agreement the words:
…to provide a sufficient number of competent drivers duly licensed to drive"?
Surely drivers are of no use unless they are licensed to drive.

Mr. Leburn: I took a good deal of trouble with these words. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, will find that they meet the bill.
I should like to follow the pattern of the debate and to deal, first, with the

one-page Undertaking concerning the Orkney Steam Navigation Company, then turn to the Orkney Islands Shipping Company and, lastly, deal with some of the points concerning MacBrayne's agreement.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) raised a number of points which I should like to answer. First, he said that at present there is no subsidy for ships operating between the mainland and the main island of Orkney. That is perfectly true, but, on the other hand, it is open to anyone operating such a service to make an application. The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of aircraft, hovercraft—I believe that I was the first hon. Member to raise the question of hovercraft with regard to these services—and landing craft, and so on.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have been considering this matter very carefully. I have no doubt that the day will come when these means of transport will be used, but, at the moment, they would not be either economical or efficient for the work that has to be done. As I have assured the right hon. Gentleman before, we have looked at this matter extremely carefully.
With regard to the amount of money involved, we know that we are paying a sum of £26,500 to the existing company. That is broken up as follows: heritable assets at Kirkwall and Rousay—offices, stores and certain other buildings—amounting to £12,300; moveable assets, £5,656; and ships at scrap value, £8,544. I emphasise that, the ships having been surveyed and the Government having paid the money for the survey, we considered it only right that we should be able to take them over at scrap value.
With regard to the trading loss concerned, it is very doubtful whether, when the accounts are seen, it would be necessary to bring this agreement before the House, because it is just possible that the company may break even. Even with the £8,000, it may not exceed £10,000 altogether. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Member for Kilmarnock that there is very little in it. It is £10,000, or just a little over or a little under that. That includes the £8,000 for the 1960 survey.

Mr. Ross: Will a Supplementary Estimate be required for this, or has allowance been made for it in the Estimates?

Mr. Leburn: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will wait to see what the actual figure turns out to be.
The question of direct shipments will have to be considered by the new company which is set up. We do not exclude this by any means, but it will be a matter for the commercial judgment of the directors of the new company.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland when he says that we must not in any way be gloomy about this. Far from it. However, while we do not necessarily contemplate losses being made in perpetuity, we must realise that the charter fee for the new vessel in itself will amount to £23,000. It is, therefore, unlikely that, paying an economic charter fee of that level, the company will be able to make a profit. We want to encourage local people to be associated with the company. It is for that reason that we suggest and hope that local capital may be forthcoming in the way of debentures.
It may be possible to extend this, and this is one of the reasons why we have limited the present agreement to one of five years. We want to see how this works out, and it is for this reason that we have limited it at the moment to five years as opposed to the agreement for MacBrayne's, which is for ten years.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) also raised one or two points about the Orkney service. I have explained the reason for the five years. The hon. Gentleman raised the point about nominating certain Gentlemen as directors, rather than appointing them. I assure him that the two words mean identically the same thing.
The hon. Gentleman also asked what the salaries of the directors would be. These have not yet been decided, but they will be for discussion between the board of the new company and my right hon. Friend. Sir Douglas Thomson and Colonel Scarth, the two Government directors, have for the moment indicated that they do not wish to accept any directors fees.
The rates of interest under Clause 14 will depend upon when the money is

finally made available to the company, and the rate of interest then pertaining, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it does not really matter very greatly as this is really only a cross entry, and if a high rate of interest is paid then my right hon. Friend will just have to make the subsidy that much bigger.
There has been a good deal of—

Mr. Rankin: Manipulation.

Mr. Leburn: —not manipulation, but accusation, if I may say so, that my right hon. Friend has taken upon himself dictatorial powers. This is not really so, but I think that the House will be with me when I say that, remembering that the Government are supplying all the money in this regard, apart from £100 local capital, for which we are very grateful—not merely for the finances involved, but for the fact that local people have taken a great interest in this matter. While the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland may have preferred to see one or two more members drawn from a wider area of the North Isles themselves, he knows that three of the seven come from the North Isles and that Colonel Scarth, as a county councillor, represents one of the North Isles.
I think that I can now leave the North Isles and turn to the MacBrayne contract.

Mr. Grimond: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the trouble he is taking in answering these questions, but do I take it from his silence about the news of a second boat that no decision has been reached about it?

Mr. Leburn: I am sorry. I overlooked that. The question of a second boat is still under consideration, and I do not think that a decision will be come to until the new company takes over and the new board of directors has had an opportunity of looking at this matter.
We had a very interesting contribution from the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan), as we always do when discussing these topics which are so close to his heart. He again made an impassioned plea for reduced fares, as did other hon. Members. He touched on the question of a fully


integrated transport service. I cannot at this time of night go into this in any great detail, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the agreement or the undertaking in the Clause which says that everything must be done to ensure that there is a connection between other forms of public transport, has been written in with the specific purpose, and with all seriousness, that it in fact can be achieved.
The hon. Member asked whether under the new vehicle ferry arrangements it would be possible to maintain a twice-weekly direct service between South Uist—Lochboisdale—and the mainland. South Uist has a connection already with the mainland, to Oban, three times a week, and MacBrayne does not propose any alteration to that. The hon. Member has in mind the connection between Lochboisdale and Mallaig. As my right hon. Friend explained in his speech, a decision has not yet been taken on the MacBrayne ferry proposals, and, therefore, what I say must not be taken as a definite commitment, but, as they stand at the moment, the MacBrayne proposals are for a twice-weekly ferry service between Mallaig and Lochboisdale, running both summer and winter.
The hon. Gentleman reminded me of a very interesting trip which I made with him to the Isle of Scalpay. Well I remember it and well I remember the discussions which I had with his friend the minister, Mr. Nicolson, about the jetty. I went into this very carefully when I got back. A solution of this difficulty offered itself—at least, so I thought—in the shape of a proposal from the county council that a separate vehicle ferry service should be operated to Scalpay across the Sound of Scalpay at Kyles Scalpay. This proposal was accepted in principle by MacBrayne and by my right hon. Friend's Department, and MacBrayne agreed to provide a new small ferry vessel, costing about £10,000, for the purpose. New jetties and road works, which would also be required, were estimated to cost about £40,000.
Subsequent to this, plans for these works were in an advanced state of preparation when, in October last, representations were received from the so-called Scalpay welfare committee objecting to the proposals on the

grounds that the service would be frequently inoperable because of conditions in the Sound of Scalpay and that it would be uneconomic. The committee proposed, instead, that a direct sea service should be given from the existing Scalpay pier to Tarbert, and these representations have been referred to the county council, and its response is awaited.
I turn now to the third important point which the hon. Gentleman raised—the Stornaway-Ullapool Ferry. I appreciate the strength of the desire in Lewis for a direct ferry crossing between Stornaway and Ullapool. I know that this has been supported by Ross and Cromarty County Council. The present services to Stornaway are the MacBrayne cargo service from Glasgow and its mail services from Mallaig and Kyle. In addition, there is the Coast Line Service and the tramp services.
I am told that the ferry project would need to capture the bulk of the MacBrayne traffic on both the cargo and the mail services if it were to be anything like economic, but MacBrayne asserts that the cheapest service for freight to Stornaway is its cargo service from Glasgow and that even if there were no MacBrayne subsidy, the promoters of the Ullapool project could not match its rates. The promoters have been invited to estimate their rates for comparison, but so far have produced no figures. I do not, of course, rule out this suggestion entirely—it will certainly be examined carefully and sympathetically—but I think that it would be wrong to give the impression that it could be introduced without some adverse effects on the present services.
I turn to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), which, I thought, linked with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and perhaps to some extent with those raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock. They were in regard to MacBrayne's financial structure. It is true that the company's capital employed has increased by about £317,000, from £726,000 in 1952 to £1,043,000 at 31st December, 1960.
The hon. Member for Motherwell was a little perturbed as to how this had


come about. The reasons for the increase in capital employed are as follows. As in this present agreement, there was an incentive clause in the old agreement. It was not such a great one as in the present agreement. It was an up and down sharing arrangement, not to the extent of £30,000 as in the new agreement, but to the extent of £15,000. This incentive provision has produced a net surplus profit to the company of about £14,000.
The second point is that the company has been restricted to paying dividend on the issued capital of £500,000. Capital in excess of £500,000 earns interest at 5 per cent. compound interest, which accumulates. From 1952 to 1958 the company voluntarily restricted dividends on the issued capital to 4 per cent. and the 1 per cent. on £500,000 also accumulated at compound interest.
Income and Profits Tax allowances on assets in the early years of some of the assets concerned have been at a greater rate than the depreciation charges made in the accounts. Thus, to equalise their Income Tax and Profits Tax, the company has created a reserve of no less than £196,000 for the day when allowances will be less than the depreciation charges in the accounts. This reserve was £67,000 in 1952 and has grown to £196,000 in 1959. It has gone up by £129,000. The reserve of £196,000 will, however, eventually disappear if not replenished by further credits in respect of new assets.
Investment allowances have meant that a great deal of the company's Income Tax and Profits Tax in their return on capital has been excused. In addition, there has been a profit on scrapped ships of £40,000.
I agree with the hon. Member that the company has built up these reserves and now has £1 million employed in the business, but I emphasise that the capital has been employed. Therefore, when he decided what rate of interest ought to be paid to the company, my right hon. Friend decided that the right and fair figure would be on the capital employed in the business and at a rate of 6⅝ per cent., which is the ten-year borrowing rate applicable to a loan of this type. My right hon. Friend considered that this

was the proper way to tackle the problem. If the Government or any other company had had to operate this service it would have to find the money at 6⅝ per cent. I hope that with that explanation the hon. Member will be able to follow what has happened.

Mr. Lawson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation, but when he says that the capital has been employed am I to take it that it has been put to a useful purpose, such as obtaining additional equipment? It is not just a question of a reserve being employed in the sense that it has been turned into capital which could be used?

Mr. Leburn: I can confirm what the hon. Member said. It has been used to buy new ships, new buses and so on.

Mr. Willis: Is it correct to say that there is no reserve? All this argument arose out of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman talked about a reserve.

Mr. Leburn: I maintain that there is a reserve, but it may not be a reserve in hard cash in the bank. There is a reserve; the assets of the company have been increased and there is a reserve to that extent, and £300,000 of it has been capitalised.

Mr. Manuel: To round this off, the hon. Member will recall that I asked whether he could tell me the total interest paid on the invested capital over the last ten years.

Mr. Leburn: Until 1957 or 1958 the company restricted its dividends to 4 per cent., and since then it has paid 5 per cent. Over the ten years the total amount of dividend paid has amounted to £190,000, which is subject to tax.
I believe that I have reasonably covered most of the points which have been raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), who is not in his place, although he was extremely critical of some of my hon. Friends because they were absent, drew a happy metaphor about the bows of a ship rising over the crest of the waves. I am paraphrasing his words fairly accurately. I like to think that the firms of MacBrayne and the new Orkney Islands Shipping Company might be likened to the bows of this ship and that in the five and ten years ahead, as the case may be, they


will rise over the crest of the wave and give an extremely good account of themselves.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Before the hon. Member disappears over the horizon, will he tell the House what arrangements the Government intend to make to give the House time to discuss the operation of these services from year to year?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The Minister cannot properly reply to that because it does not arise on this Undertaking.

Mr. Willis: Will the Minister reply to the question which I asked about the ships being built for the Western Isles services, for MacBrayne? When are we likely to hear about them?

Mr. Leburn: I will not attempt to answer the question of the hon. Member for the Western Isles in view of your comment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I am sure that he has enough ingenuity to find a way to meet his own point.
In reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, I would say that my

right hon. Friend is shortly to ask a shipping firm to submit designs for these ships, and shortly afterwards it is hoped to put these out to tender to a certain number of firms which will be recommended to my right hon. Friend by the Minister of Transport. After the tenders have been made, my right hon. Friend will have to consider the position of how the order is to be placed and the number of ships involved. It is hoped that it will not be too far into the New Year before a final decision is taken.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Undertaking between the Secretary of State for Scotland and David MacBrayne Limited, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th November, be approved.

Undertaking between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Orkney Steam Navigation Company Limited [draft laid before the House 29th November] approved.—[Mr. Maclay.]

Undertaking between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Orkney Islands Shipping Company Limited [draft laid before the House 27th November] approved.—[Mr. Maclay.]

SUMMER TIME

10.46 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 2 of the Summer Time Act, 1947, praying that the Summer Time (1962) Order, 1961, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 22nd November.
Under the Summer Time Acts of 1922 and 1925, Summer Time is fixed to run from the Sunday following the third Saturday in April—unless that Sunday is Easter Day, when it is the Sunday after the second Saturday—to the Sunday after the first Saturday in October. The Summer Time Act of 1947 provided a procedure for varying that period in any one year. The House will remember that an Order was laid last year for achieving that object in this year, with the result that this year we have had an extension of Summer Time by three weeks in the spring and another three weeks in the autumn. The purpose of the Order which I am now suggesting the House should approve is to continue into 1962 the Summer Time arrangements which we have had this year. I would remind the House that last year we had the general support of both Houses of Parliament.
The public reaction to the experiment this year has been generally favourable; indeed, we have had extraordinarily little comment about the matter either way. What is perhaps significant in that, so far—I do not say that they may not do so when they have had more time to collect their thoughts about it—we have had no representations from the various bodies whom we consulted before laying the Order last year for this year's extension. The number of individual complaints from members of the public or Members of this House has been very small; I understand they amount to less than a dozen altogether.
Therefore, in view of the fact that this year's experiment seems to have general favour; that it does not seem to have upset anybody, and that the extension of hours, especially in the autumn, has been generally appreciated by millions of people, we feel that it is sensible to ask the House to approve the continuation of the experiment again next year.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: When the Order to which the hon. and learned Member has referred came before the House a year ago, introduced by his predecessor, it was pointed out that for this year the Government intended as an experiment, to extend the period of Summer Time for three weeks in the spring and three weeks in October. The hon and learned Member's predecessor indicated that if the experiment which we have had this year appeared to find favour with the public he would consider either renewing the Order for a further period or, perhaps, even going further still and introducing an extension of Summer Time all the year round.
Just as last year we raised no objection to the extension then proposed, so equally I now agree with the Minister of State for the Home Department. It seems to me, from such observations as I have heard, that the public reaction to this year's experiment was entirely favourable. That may have been due in part to the fact that we had an exceptionally fine October. There is no doubt that many millions of people were thereby able to enjoy an extra hour's sunshine, or at least an extra hour's daylight in the evening when they had the opportunity to enjoy it and were quite prepared in most cases to sacrifice an hour's daylight in the morning.
It is obvious, from observations I have seen in the Press and elsewhere, that the public welcome well into October an extra hour's daylight. We have now been accustomed for a fairly long period to this adjustment of the clock. It is obviously a device generally appreciated as giving the maximum satisfaction to the greatest number of people. It seems to me that the Government have chosen about the right dates in proposing that next year Summer Time should commence on 25th March and extend to 28th October. I do not think that there would be any great demand for any extension of Summer Time beyond that date.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Ray Mawby: When we had a similar Order before us to cover this year's extension of Summer Time it was pointed out that this was a compromise decision and was in the nature


of an experiment. The important question now is whether this method is to be adopted each year. If so, we have turned full circle. My hon. Friend the Minister of State said that there had been no complaint or representation. Apparently, altering the clock twice a year has become, like other vices, habit-forming and we have come to accept it as part of normal life.
I have looked up the date at the time when the Summer Time Act, 1925, was passed. It was then pointed out by the mover of the Bill that after 31st December, 1922, Summer Time was renewed each year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. This practice continued until the 1925 Bill became an Act. The whole point of passing that Act was to make the Statute permanent and not subject to renewal each year. If we are to renew this Order each year, I suggest that we should complete the circle and have this matter discussed when the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is debated.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I hardly think that that arises on what we are now debating.

Mr. Mawby: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I have said anything that is out of order. I was trying to draw attention to the way we have gone on.
I have read an interesting speech made in 1925 by Mr. Grenfell, who said:
During the war many specious claims were put forward for new legislation, and one of the claims put forward for this Measure was that Summer Time would have a very beneficial effect in reducing fuel consumption. It was then known as the Daylight Saving Bill. I do not know whether I am entitled to suggest that the promoters of this Measure were practical jokers.
That was the view he took. He went on to say:
Hon. Members are sitting here for hours today seriously contemplating the permanence of a piece of legislation for which not a single word has been said in demonstration of its advantages."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1925; Vol. 181, c. 1789.]
He was followed by the then Home Secretary, whose main point seemed to be that we had to do this to bring ourselves in line with the Summer Time arrangements in France, Belgium and Holland. Indeed, later that year, the

Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs gave an undertaking that Government time would be given for the final stages of the Bill, because France, Belgium and Holland had made their arrangements for Summer Time and ours should coincide with theirs.
Belgium, France and Holland have now thrown out this archaic institution. They have continuous time throughout the year. They do not mess about with their clocks. Therefore, I see no point in our maintaining this rather archaic procedure. We should do one of two things. Either we should stick to Greenwich Mean Time throughout the year and admit finally that we do not save any daylight—the fact that the term "daylight saving" has been dropped suggests that it was untrue—or we should follow Central European time, which is our present Summer Time, but do not let us carry on altering the clock and arguing in this House what day it should start and finish.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: I intervene briefly to support the Order. Last year, I supported a similar Order which gave the people six weeks' extra day-light in the evenings and I am pleased to support it again for next year. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) that there has been no complaint against the extension this year and that it has brought pleasure to millions of people.
An important point which I advanced last year was in connection with road safety. I stressed the help given to transport, to people going home from work in the evenings, whether by motor car or by bus. Everybody would agree that it is much better to drive in the daylight than in the dark. In transport the extra hour in April and October has helped considerably. In addition, it has brought pleasure to young people who take part in sport. The extra hour of daylight has enabled the young people to take part in sports during the October evenings, when otherwise they would be debarred. The extra hour has been a boon to those who want to work in their gardens in daylight during the early evening.
I see no objection to the Order. It means that millions of people will get


an extra hour of daylight in April and in October. As my hon. Friend has said, October was a good month this year and people were able to enjoy the good weather. The extension was helpful to seaside resorts, where people can go and have the extra hour of daylight by the sea, either at week-ends or if they take late holidays.
I hope very much that before long the Government will make the terms of the Order permanent. It is a definite improvement for the people and it gives the majority of them an extra hour of daylight in the evenings.
It took the First World War to convince people of the advantage of having extra daylight in the evenings, although there had been a campaign for years. We all know the benefits of Summer Time. I very much hope that before long the Government will make it a permanent feature of our life. I have much pleasure in supporting the Order.

Mr. David James: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, may I ask him one question? If he values the extra hour which us gardeners enjoy in October and April, why should not we have it in November, December, January and February?

Mr. Hunter: That point could be debated.

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate it now because it would be out of order. It would involve amendment of the Statute.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I rise to support my hon. and learned Friend in this extension and to encourage him to go further in the future. As regards road safety, we all know that all over the British Isles the rush hour is between 4.30 and 6 p.m. That is the most dangerous time of the whole twenty-four hours. If anything can be done to extend the hours of daylight in the rush period, it will obviously be of great benefit.
I want to draw the attention of my hon. and learned Friend to one further point. If in the forthcoming year or in 1963 we were to go into the Common Market and thereby have to conduct more trade—

Mr. Speaker: Order. How can 1963 be in any way related to this Order, which relates to 1962?

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. If in 1962 we were to enter the Common Market, we should be confronted with this state of affairs. A constituent of mine has written to me in these terms:
We start work here in England say at 9 a.m. and work until 5 p.m. with a break for lunch of from 12.30 to 2 p.m. The Continent has a lunch period from 12 to 2 p.m. which means that we here in England cannot contact the Continent"—
by telephone—
before 9 a.m. which is the start of our working day and which is 10 a.m. on the Continent, and we cannot contact them any later than 11 a.m. here which is 12 o'clock over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This relates to Summer Time. One can telephone in the dark perfectly well, so far as I know. Let us have some regard to the problems before the House.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Office hours do not change from summer to winter but Summer Time affects the ability of business men to make contact with the Continent. My constituent continues:
All that is left therefore for business people to make contact on the Continent are four hours—9 to 11 and 2 to 4 p.m. which is rather short and could well jeopardise quite a lot of business, as our Continental counterparts among themselves have much more time to contact each other for business discussions.
I am not sure what the shortest day of the year is. I think that it is 22nd December. There is some dispute about which is the longest night. The world make be knocked off its orbit by rockets and the shortest day may not always occur exactly on 22nd December. Assuming that that is so, I suggest that in the future—in 1962—we have one month's winter time before the shortest day and two months afterwards, because that is the coldest period when people.—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may not discuss upon this Order that which requires an amendment of the Statute—10 and 11 George VI. Chapter 16. What he is now saying would do so.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I do not want to break the rules of order, but I do want to encourage my hon. and learned


Friend in this Order. I think that I have drawn his attention to certain relevant considerations for the future when he is thinking about this matter. The fact remains that from every point of view this Order is beneficial. I do not know whether it will be possible to extend it a little further in future. I leave that with my hon. and learned Friend.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on this Order, which he has got about right. As a farmer, I know that the agricultural community has sometimes taken a dim view of the extension of the Order, but most farmers are now taking the view that the extra hour at the end of the day has been beneficial. It is now about right, for if it is extended any further, we shall have darkness at the beginning of the working day as well as darkness at the end.
While it is all very well to have light at the beginning and the end of the working day, we do not want to have to have an extra hour's darkness in the morning as well as darkness at the end of the working day. While there is nothing we can do about people having to travel home from work in darkness, we do not want them to have to travel to work in darkness as well. I think that farmers will be satisfied with the present position, and I am glad that the Order is to be continued for another year. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to make it permanent.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Renton: By leave of the House; as you have rightly reminded us, Mr. Speaker, this Order deals only with the position in 1962. I am glad to have received the support which we have had for what we propose for next year, and especially glad, without disrespect to other hon. Members, to have had the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), speaking, as he does, as a farmer.
To those hon. Members who have expressed varying opinions about how we might do otherwise, I need only say that what we do in this Order for 1962 will not prejudice the position for subsequent years.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 2 of the Summer Time Act, 1947, praying that the Summer Time (1962) Order, 1961, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 22nd November.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

LAUNDRY WAGES COUNCIL ORDER

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

11.8 p.m.

Mr. W. E. Padley: There stands on the Order Paper a Motion, in my name and the names of 74 of my hon. Friends, strongly condemning the action of the Minister of Labour in postponing the operation of the Laundry Wages Council Order until the day after All-Fools Day, 1962. I appreciate that this action of the Minister of Labour is linked with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 25th July and that it is part of the iniquitous pay pause which is being breached almost every day.
I regard this action of the Government as particularly wicked. The present weekly rates under the Laundry Wages Council are £7 7s. 10d. for an adult male and £5 7s. 6d. for an adult female. Yet, acting in accordance with the general policy of the Government, the Minister of Labour postponed for 4½ months the meagre increase of roughly 5s. a week to women employed in laundries.
Let us look at the history of this case. The last increase in wages under the Laundry Wages Council was in March, 1960. The meeting which recommended this meagre increase to the women employed in the laundries took place on 7th September last. Between March, 1960, and September, 1961, the Interim Index of Retail Prices rose from 110 to 115. That is a rise of 4·5 per cent.
The Wages Council by a majority vote, the independent members voting with the employers, taking note of a letter from the Minister of Labour conveying the content of the Chancellor's statement of 25th July, declined to recommend any increase on a male rate of £7 7s. 10d. which means that following the lead of


the Chancellor and the Minister of Labour, the independent members decided that men on a minimum rate of that kind should suffer a reduction of nearly 5 per cent. in their pay.
But even the independent members who could do that decided that rate of £5 7s. 6d. for adult women employed in the laundries was so scandalous that, although they took note of the Minister's letter and of the Chancellor's statement, they recommended this meagre increase of 5s. 4½d. Yet the Minister of Labour, instead of signing the Order for immediate operation, postponed it until 2nd April, 1962.
I am not concerned only with what has happened between the last increase in March, 1960, and the present time. As everyone knows, laundries came within the scope of the old trade boards established to eradicate sweated labour. They are now under the Wages Council. The Wages Council was established by this House to cover those industries where, without some statutory regulation, reasonable minimum standards of life and leisure would not be achieved. Yet if one takes the period 1947 to 1961 we find that wages fixed under the Laundry Wages Council have lagged very much behind the general rise in wage rates.
In that period of fourteen years average wage rates have risen by 95·12 per cent. In laundries the male rate has increased by only 64·25 per cent. and the female rate by only 79·16 per cent. If one takes the figures for average earnings, the position is almost as bad. When one realises that longer hours are worked in laundries than in many industries, a comparison of hourly rates reveals an even worse position. At the time the Wages Council met, the latest official figures from the Ministry showed that laundries ranked 93rd in a list of 103 industries so far as wage rates are concerned.
Some will say that these are only minimum rates, that there are bonus schemes, that overtime is worked, and so on. But on the Ministry's own figures in October, 1960, 22 per cent. of the male workers in the industry received less than £10 a week and 45 per cent. of the women received less than £6 a week. It is those women who are being

refused for 4½ months this meagre increase of 5s. 4½d. a week. That is one side of the picture.
Since the Chancellor pretends that this is a question of incomes and not a question of wages, let us look at some of the large laundry undertakings in Britain. If one takes Advance Laundries, Ltd. with a capital of more than £2 million, what does one find? One finds that profit after tax has risen from £206,000 in 1958 to £325,000 in 1960; dividends have been increased from 12 per cent. to 15 per cent., and the Financial Times of 15th May, reported the chairman as predicting that dividends in 1961 will be even higher. I could go on quoting many of the facts about the big laundries of this country. There is Laundry Services, Limited, a concern with a capital of nearly £¾ million, whose profit between 1958 and 1960, after tax, rose from £96,000 to £144,000, while the dividend increased from 17½ per cent. to 21 per cent.
I will not weary the House by quoting further figures. The truth is that, because of mechanisation and new methods, productivity in this industry has risen remarkably; but these miserable rates of pay continue to be given. This class of worker is singled out for a particularly mean application of the pay pause policy. Does the Chancellor, or the Government as a whole, really believe that an adult male wage of £7 7s. 10d. or a female adult wage of £5 12s. 10½d. is the cause of inflation in Great Britain? Does the Chancellor believe that the use of the Draconic power of the Minister of Labour to sign or not to sign the Order for an increase in these miserable, meagre rates, will make any contribution, one way or the other, to Britain's balance of payments problem? If so, the Government will stand convicted of economic lunacy and moral turpitude.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. Edward J. Milne: I should like to add a few remarks about this Laundry Wages Council Order because, in reply to Questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) and myself last week, we were told of a few reasons why the Minister thought it was necessary for him to take the action that has taken. The right hon. Gentleman said that while the duty


of the Wages Council was to come to a decision on wages, it was his duty to determine the operative date. Nobody argues on that point. The argument and criticism directed at the Minister is made because he believes that the date, 2nd April, 1962, which is so far in advance of the actual fixing of new wage rates for female employees only, at this particular time, is right. The Minister also said that the question of holding back wages because of the pay pause had been laid down by the Chancellor; but that, in this case, is really attacking the wages of the lower paid workers.
Furthermore, I should like to hear, in the reply which we are to have tonight, just how these circumstances can be related. When the last wage increase, under a Wages Council Order, was granted in 1960, I was an official of my union in Scotland. I do not want to weary the House with a lot of figures, but we had put forward then the same type of arguments against any increase. There were the same arguments from the Government and the employers, but the time between the granting of the increase and the signing of the Order was considerably less than in the present case. I expect that tonight we shall be told that the Chancellor has laid down the principles of a pay pause. If so, all right, but if there is to be a pay pause, then let it be uniform in character.
The Government have stood aside on a number of occasions and watched breaches in the pay pause wall being made in both public and private industry. The laundry industry, as my hon. Friend has demonstrated, can well afford to pay the present rates; in fact, it is only ten places away from the worst-paid industry in the scales drawn up by the Ministry.
There is nothing more deplorable in the actions of the Government in the weeks that have passed since the pay pause policy was pronounced than their action in dealing with lower paid workers in this fashion after negotiations, after the independents and trade union side had decided, against the employers side, that there should be an increase. It is deplorable for the Minister to use a sledge hammer in this way and to hold back until 2nd April next year increases which ought rightly to have been paid by now.

11.21 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Alan Green): The hon. Members for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) and Blyth (Mr. Milne) have spoken with knowledge of this matter, and I think that in the circumstances they have spoken with some restraint.
In view of what has been said, I must, for the sake of the record at least, make it clear that rates of pay and hours of work in industries covered by Wages Council Orders are neither proposed nor determined by the Government. The Councils consist of representatives of employers and workers and of independent members. Previous Ministers of Labour have on occasion felt it right to draw the attention of Wages Councils to the general economic circumstances of the day, and I am sure that nobody would suggest that that is an improper action on the part of any Minister.
The proceedings of the Councils are, of course, confidential and are not disclosed to my right hon. Friend unless a Council itself expressly wishes to do so. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that the Council in this case carefully considered all relevant factors, including the Chancellor's statement of 25th July.
When a Wages Council wishes to fix new minimum rates, it submits proposals to my right hon. Friend. He has no power to add to or to subtract from those proposals. We must be clear about this. He can refer the proposals hack for reconsideration, and this has been done under both Labour and Conservative Administrations. If no reference back is made, the Minister has no alternative but to make an Order implementing the minimum rates proposed by the Council.
The Minister has only one responsibility in respect of the content of a Wages Council Order. He has to decide the operative date. He has no responsibility whatever for the actual content of an Order in terms of rates or hours. We must be clear about this, because the accusation which was made was twofold: first, that the rates themselves were far too low, and, second, that being too low, it was doubly bad to defer the operative date of the Order. I hope that I have made it quite clear that my


right hon. Friend has no direct responsibility other than for the date. Therefore, we are back to the date.
Perhaps I might first make one comment on the content—the wage rates and the hours of work. They are, of course, minimum rates, as the hon. Members for Ogmore and Blyth pointed out. Average earnings in this industry for men in April this year were £5 a week above the minimum and average earnings for women £1 a week above the minimum. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that these average earnings, let alone the minimum rates, are, in fact, too low, but it is not an argument really that can be applied directly to my right hon. Friend, because I have shown that he has no direct responsibility for what these rates are.
We are therefore back to the date. It was asked—I wrote the question down—is this single act to solve the whole economic problem? I think those were the terms in which the hon. Member for Ogmore put it to me. Of course, no single act will solve a complex economic problem. One cannot argue in that sense from the particular to the general and no Government would do so. All income increases are relevant to Government policy whichever Government it is. I am sure that no one would deny that, least of all those who claim to believe in a planned economy. These increases are relevant both in the amount of the increase and in the operative date.
Having shown, as I hope that I have shown, that my right hon. Friend's responsibility is limited to the date, I must now seek to show that the action he took—distasteful to him as to any other member of the Government—was in fact done with the interests of the whole economy in mind. Included in those interests are the interests of everybody in this country. He has acted within the limits of his powers, which are related only to the date, with the purpose of helping to check the course of increases generally. If those increases had continued at the rate at which they were going in the first half of this year, they would have been bound to lead to inflation and serious damage to the economy.
I think we can perhaps all agree, whatever else we may disagree on, that,

if inflation persists, those who will lose most by it are those who most need protection from it. This means particularly those who have the smallest incomes, either fixed from savings or the smallest by earnings. Those who have the smallest incomes from earnings are generally those covered by Wages Councils. In seeking to extend a general protection against inflation, my right hon. Friend and his right hon. Friends must have these lowest paid workers particularly in mind.
Of course, if one argues from the particular to the general, I and everyone else must have great sympathy with what both hon. Members have said. If Governments simply argued from the particular to the general there would be no course of action they could take in the effort to halt inflation. So they are forced to do what at the moment in particular instances may be distasteful to them, but it is done on the grounds of true general interest including the interests of those directly affected by Orders such as this.
Hon. Members opposite are quite entitled to say that if they had power they would pursue this objective by totally different means. They are quite entitled to say that, but I think they accept that the objective is to stop inflation. There is no doubt that many of us have different ideas about the method of achieving the objective. This is a matter of opinion and judgment. I should be a little surprised, however, if those who say that they disapprove of the consequences of inflation should condemn the action by my right hon. Friend to do what he can within his necessarily limited powers to help to check it. The answer will no doubt again come back. "But not in this case", and the argument will, again, be made from the particular to the general.
The Government have to act in general. They must act within the powers which they have. No action could be taken, and I do not believe that it would be right to take it, on the ground of the size of the increase recommended. It is a small increase and the rates are still pretty small. If they were not small this industry would not need to be covered by a Wages Council. What is in question is not


the rate. That is not the direct responsibility of my right hon. Friend. What is in question is the timing of the Order. The Minister has put this timing on the Order because this is one of the few direct areas in which the Government can help to slow down inflation, which has particularly undesirable effects on those with small incomes. He has done this not because he wants to do it in this particular case but because he believes that in the general case—which is the only way he can tackle it—this is a protective thing to do for all, including those with small earnings.

Mr. Charles A. Howell: Does not the Minister agree that in the main the date of the application of an award is based on the submission of the trade union that it should be applied from the date of the application for an increase and the submission of the employers' side of the Wages Council invariably saying that the date should be the date of the agreement? Where does the Minister come into deciding the date? Can the Minister quote any instances before the pay pause in which a Minister has post-dated the application of the award so far into the future? What must we tell these people who are receiving less than seven guineas a week when the Minister does nothing about profits?

Mr. Green: The first point may be less valid than the hon. Member thinks. Other Ministers of Labour, including one in a Labour Government, have referred proposals back to the Council.

Mr. Howell: But they were sent back again by the Council.

Mr. Green: That is one way of achieving delay. Any reference back must produce delay, and such a course was open to my right hon. Friend. But he took the view that it was better to put a date to the Order. This is a matter of judgment, but I make the point that a reference back is inserting delay and that that has been done before. In this case my right hon. Friend chose a specific period of delay. One could choose either a reference back or a specific later date and argue that one was better than the other, but it is not right to say that delays have not been introduced before.
I was asked how this could be done in view of the figures of profits which were given.

Mr. Howell: I asked what we can tell these people with such low incomes when they are sacrified to help the country's economy without anything being done to freeze these increased profits.

Mr. Green: I have no doubt that just as one can find certain workers in the laundry industry who are getting substantially more than the average rates—this is always the case with average rates—so one can find certain laundry companies which are making good profits. The two generally go together. But I can only assure the hon. Member that profits have in general shown a downward trend this year. The difficulty about proving any such matter is that companies tend to return the figures of their profits a year afterwards, and in nearly every case the profit figures one gets this year are in fact the profits made last year—which was a period of incipient inflation which my right hon. and learned Friend hopes he is now helping to check.
I repeat what I have already said—that, when the individual person knows himself or herself to be particularly affected, it is difficult for him or her to accept the general argument. It is exceedingly difficult and distasteful for the Minister to have to take this action. But, if this is not done, all hope of having any kind of general Government policy is destroyed, because every individual or section of the people, by himself or by themselves, can always put forward a very good particular case—not merely the workers in the laundries but the workers in almost any sphere of activity.
Every particular case can always be brought against the general argument, and the only argument the Government can make back—and the only one, I believe, that hon. Members opposite would make if they were in power—is the general case, that they are exercising their judgment in what they believe to be the general interest of the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Twelve o'clock.